User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2010

Mc/Mac

It occurs to me that you might be able to contribute to this ref desk discussion:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question tbh. Is he asking where the specific name McQueen comes from, or is he asking where Mc/Mac comes from. I know nothing about the first, but if he meant the second, my initial reaction was that there was no real significance as to whether you were a Mc or a Mac in terms of etymology (although I couldn't remember why tbh), and that the Scottish/Irish explanation is tosh. IIRC, the only thing that really mattered was what came after the mc/mac part. The top Google result [2] from m'learned friend Ewan J. Innes I then found seems to agree, so that's my answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wii Fit Girl

It clearly is a completely different article, with 100% original content. It has a huge response section, and it addresses every single assertion that the article has no standing to exist. To address each one:

• "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." - She is a spokesperson for EA Sports Active, she appeared on the Tyra Banks Show, TRL, was a participant on a show along with famous fitness celebrities, has inspired many offshoots, has received response from noted "viral marketing" experts and other journalists, response from Nintendo, has been sued over the video, the plaintiff being interviewed by Fox News, etc. It is blatantly evident that she is notable for more than just a YouTube video.
• "There are about 30 news pieces about her (one more about another person) per Gnews. All related to the one event about her youtube video, doing hula hoop motions on the Wii Fit, dressed in t-shirt and panties, filmed and posted by her boyfriend, without her knowing, over 8 million views." - The article clearly establishes that her notoriety has grown beyond a video, though the video is clearly the trampoline into these other ventures and news.
• The only reason it was deleted is because no one who actually knew the actual history and events of this person noticed the AfD. If you honestly believe that her notability is based solely on the YouTube video, then you aren't looking hard enough.

I will still file DRV, but will also point out that requiring a DRV for THIS situation is the definition of bureaucrazy [typo intended]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not I have no strong feelings about the article (I only created the redirect and found about about the Afd when I went looking for her a while ago, having known she had an article at one point, and seeing it had infact been deleted well after the event (incident was early 2008, Afd was June 2009). But seeing you recreate it, I know someone will definitely CSD it at some point, so the only way to ensure long term survival if you really want the article to stay, is to overturn the original Afd via DRV, per your above arguments. I suggest if you do want it to stay though, it definitely needs work, as currently, the refs are unformatted, and it is definitely a hard read. I'd say it has a chance, but I myself wouldn't bother though, the BLP activists have DRV in their pocket, and the only thing they will see is that it is an article about a living person who has been 'harmed' by Wikipedia by having a bio written about her, and vote delete because this is a concept they absolutely cannot bear. They won't bother themselves to consider how she has apparently embraced it, and has (maybe) developed notability beyond oneevent and allow that to be properly debated. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The references being unformatted doesn't have anything to do with notability, though. And she clearly isn't upset by the subject, by the fact that she embraces it [even calling herself the Wii Fit Girl to this date]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I already said I don't care either way, the above is only advice and information. As long as you take the article to DRV, which is the right thing to do, I have no other strong feelings on the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

flight 253

Why remove this sourced information?

Abdulmutallab travelled to Yemen in August of 2009 to study Arabic, and in October had cut off contact with his family. His worried father reported his disappearance and "extreme religious views" to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria on November 17. As a result, Abdulmutallab's name was added to the U.S.'s central international terrorist database, but not to shorter search-before-boarding and no-fly lists, and a two-year U.S multi-entry visa granted to him in 2008, was not revoked. Several reports of pre-attack intelligence linked Abdulmutallab to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemen-based, senior al-Qaeda member who was also linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers and may have helped to radicalize and motivate the Fort Hood shooter. Reports also indicated the U.S. had received intelligence regarding a planned attack by a Yemeni-based Nigerian man. Abdulmutallab trained at Al-Qaeda camps in Yemen where Awlaki was one of his trainers, the imam who personally blessed the attack, and is believed to have helped plan the attack.

Bachcell (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I only removed the last line [3]. The rest was just moved. Please read wp:lede - if you want to add sourced information to the article, add it to the main article sections (and please format the citations properly, see Template:Cite). Al-Qaeda and Yemen are already more than adequately covered in the lede, which is a summary. MickMacNee (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 Togo national football team bus attack

On 9 January 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 Togo national football team bus attack, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Refuge (United Kingdom charity)

On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Refuge (United Kingdom charity), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse

Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The kittens thank you.

Meowz!

I might not always agree with your methods, but I have to compliment you for this. Thanks for taking the petition in good humor.  :-) —David Levy 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first kitten ever posted on my talk page. For that feat alone I say thanks!. MickMacNee (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Hello

Hi, kinda confused cause I just delivered the above newsletter to you. Who you were referring too when you wrote: "You are no leader, you're incompetent."

If it was Berian he is a ARS member too.

Regardless of who this comment was addressed to, could you please strike or remove it? Thank you. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does this make it any clearer? It certainly wasn't directed at Berian, but I guess you only see these things on the second look... MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MickMacNee. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey MickMacNee. I think it would help out a lot if you would "tweak" your comment a little. I know emotions are running high on that issue and obviously I won't be blocking anyone :) and I understand where you're coming from, but I think your comment is a little over the top. Bearian is a pretty nice fellow. He just doesn't agree with you on this issue. I don't either. You can call me names though, I'm used to it. ;) Cheers. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are people getting this idea this was directed at Bearian? I am right now, totally confused. MickMacNee (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a poor diff reader I guess. I'm still not sure exactly who the comment is directed at. Anyway, take care and have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

MickMacNee, activate your email, I need to explain what is going on, and how to help you.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. This barnstar is awarded to MickMacNee, for the wonderful idea of this: Wikipedia:Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse. Ikip 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

?. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to talk, you know were to find me. I did my best to close down the ANI I accidentally inspired. Ikip 05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving my comments

I am not going to edit war with you, but please do not move my comments. "precedence" is not something we run Wikipedia on and you don't have the option of removing anything that disagrees with your point from a page you started. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a talk page, I am not barred from moving your comments at all if they are not supposed to be there. I'll take the established precedence for petitions on Wikipedia in the absence of any other official or consensus direction, unless or until you want to demonstrate otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just don't move my comments in the future. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't put them where you shouldn't, and I won't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to decide which comment go where? Who put you in charge? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:TALK, and WP:CLUE, and whatever else that helps you see this complaint for what it is, unless or until, et cetera et cetera, as above. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your productive response. Please do not move my comments in the future. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not repeat yourself unnecessarily on my talk page. That orange bar gets quite irritating when it is abused. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

mick, try to bring down the conversation a little, please. Ikip 17:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League

I didn't want to revert again without talking to you, but I doubt anyone wants to expand that section since that tag has been there for more than two years. And besides, nothing's stopping someone who is interested in making a section like that from doing so, i'm just looking to make the article a little cleaner in the meantime. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't be sure nobody wants to do it. Somebody might come and expand it tomorrow. I might even dot it. We most certainly do no go around removing cleanup/improvement tags from articles to make articles look 'cleaner', that's simply absurd. If you want to make it cleaner, you should expand the section and remove the tag, that would be the true Wikipedia way to do it. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The odds of someone coming are fairly small given the time frame it's been there, if someone wanted to expand it by now they probably would have. I would equally posit that no one person is the authority on the "true wikipedia way" to do things given the collaborative nature of this project. However, i'd be happy to help you expand it if you do start on it tomorrow. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Odds have nothing to do with it. And tbh, I'd be amazed, truly amazed, if you could ever show there is any kind of consensus that this kind of 'cleaning' is desirable. MickMacNee (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be amazed if there was a consensus otherwise given the lack of interest in expanding that section. So, are you ready to expand that section? Doc Quintana (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think you would be amazed, prove it. Otherwise, stop wasting my goddam time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to prove it to you. If you're not interested in expanding the article, i'll assume nobody is and remove the tag again. I would also ask that you improve your demeanor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Get fucked. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MickMacNee. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One week for There can be no justification whatsoever for this.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Block is now indefinite. Prodego ^talk 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Would a Civility Restriction be a better alternative? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay you're a saint, but really? After all this? Alastairward (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the key is to rehabilitate the user before MickMacNee, because they may make socks if indefed. Either we can continue block and reblock the socks until the person operating MickMacNee gets bored, or hopefully we can change their behavior so they can become a constructive part of the community. I'd definitely prefer the latter solution, this behavior the user has shown over time is not acceptable. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You were in an edit war over an "expand" tag. If someone puts a tag like that on an article, it should stay there. MacNee's all-too-typical "fighting Irish" response does not alter the fact that he was in the right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we can disagree on whether he was in the right or not: that tag had been there for years, if anyone had wanted to expand that section by now, it's likely they would have. I apologize about the reversions however, I wasn't sure if it had gotten to the point of a true edit war or not and I hoped to resolve our differences of opinion here on the user's talk page, but if I did go too far into an edit war, I apologize. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe this is part of your learning process. There was no reason to remove the tag. Because tomorrow someone might come along and expand it, even if it's 3 years old. There's no deadline in wikipedia. It's different from a "POV" tag that some users will post but not comment on in the talk page. To me, those are just gratuitous and are fair game for removal. But something benign like an "expand" tag, or something generally benign, like a "fact" tag, needs to stay, to alert other editors to potential improvements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I disagree on them not being as superfluous as the other tags since the expand tag is usually either a request from an editor for someone to expand a section when they cannot or a cop-out from expanding it themselves. Either way, nothing would have stopped a user from expanding and recreating that section even without the tag, it was utterly superfluous there. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be arguing for removal of the tag project wide, Doc. I agree with Bugs; if a user wants an improvement tag on an article and there is no definitive reason it should not be there, you should not remove it. Tan | 39 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone makes a proposal to deprecate the expand tag(s) let me know, I'll be right there to support it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What would be a good alternative? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you know, something like... actually editing the article!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I barely know anything about the subject, so it'd take me awhile before i'd feel comfortable editing it extensively. Little stuff like tags or grammar can be done by anybody though.Doc Quintana (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident Mick won't create socks. If he did, that would merely extent his block. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you extend an indefinite block? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Super Secret Triple Probation Block :) Doc Quintana (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite is of non-fixed duration, it can be extended to a ban as often happens when a users evades blocks with socks. Dealing with socks is not that hard. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so there's "indefinitely" blocked, and then there's "definitely" blocked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Most definitely so. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm not going to question the actual block here, but people should realize that Mick has been on the "front lines" of a certain debate where several admins have behaved very inappropriately and are not only still editing but are still administrators (and some even have more privileges). It should hardly be surprising that he's pissed off and acting less then civil as a result. None of this is an excuse for his poor behavior, and like I said above I don't actually question the block, but all of us share some responsibility for at least this block.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA makes it clear that the level of repetition and just the severity of the violations should be taken into account in a block. There is a thread at WP:ANI#User:MickMacNee you can post at if you disagree with the duration, but policy does not require personal attacks to be severe when there is an ongoing pattern of such behavior. Please remember that indefinite does not mean forever, it means the duration is not defined. This block will be reviewed in the future to see if it is still needed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I agree with the several points that both of you have brought up. Make of that what you will...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reposting my comment above at the thread also. But, as is often the case, there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted here, on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong. --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No evidence? Check out the block log. Check out the talk page history. You don't know what you're talking about. Indefinite blocks are subject to unblocking, same as every other block. Tan | 39 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right. No evidence for *this* block. We've all seen poor admins using the "Block Log" to justify a bad block. I'm looking for the evidence for this particular block. Where are the warnings? Where has the evidence actually been presented? We're not mind readers you know... --HighKing (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't initially say there was no evidence for this block. You said, and I quote, "...no evidence presented of 'an ongoing pattern of such behavior'". So, I told you there was most definitely evidence of such behavior, and you .... turn it back around for only this block? Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. Tan | 39 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tan is right, indefinite is not "infinite". I've seen a number of "indefinite" blocks overturned, sometimes quickly, sometimes after many months or even years. And no one can go by the talk page, as editors are free to delete just about anything they want from their talk pages. But they can't touch the block log, so the block log is a more reliable indicator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that indefinite was the same as infinite....the point being that indefinite *could* be infinite though, if the block is never overturned... --HighKing (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. And whether it gets overturned will depend on reasonable unblock requests that accept responsibility rather than playing the "look what you made me do" game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes I was incredibly rude to Doc Quintana, it was an unfortunate confluence of external factors and my perception that he was baiting me with his comments above. That was seemingly already dealt with by Spartaz with a weeks block, yet before I could even respond to that situation, I find myself kicked off the project permanently, seemingly on the whim of Prodego and a few people with axes to grind coming out of the woodwork. This is highly irregular, and frankly, totally unfair. If I am to be kicked off the project with not even an Rfc against my name, and I will have no issues if it goes down like that, I want it done legitimately, with a proper consensus of uninvolved editors with no vested interest in seeing me screwed over like this. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that blame others are dismissed, see WP:NOTTHEM. I note the remarkable absence of anything resembling an apology.  Sandstein  23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mick, you mention that you wanted uninvolved editors to look this over. There is Wikipedia:ANI#User:MickMacNee where the community at large has been made aware of this block and is reviewing it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Mick thinks I want him to be screwed over when I've been the one ambivalent about an indef block, or that he thinks that a simple disagreement is seen as baiting. People disagree, not everyone is always going to agree with you. At this point, perhaps I was wrong on AN/I and perhaps an indef block is appropriate since it seems the user has no interest in rehabilitating their behavior and perhaps Wikipedia is not the right website for them in my opinion. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you had 15 other blocks to figure out the way Wikipedians are supposed to act. If you choose not to act the way that is expected of you, no RfC, RfM, RfAR, or block is going to change that. Only you can change that, and that unblock request shows no indication of a willingness to do so. Prodego ^talk 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I unconditionally apologise for the response to Doc Quintana above which was of course inexcusable. It was a heat of the moment post which came during an extremely difficult afternoon for me for reasons I really don't want to make public, which put me in a frame of mind to see intentional provocation where there was none, and I had no opportunity to rectify the situation before I noticed this indef. I of course fully acknowledge I have behavioural issues for which I have accrued a rather large block log, but in that time which has spanned several years I have imo made a good overall contribution to the project, not least by writing countless articles and improving thousands more. My first ineffective unblock request was genuinely the result of a perception that this, my first ever indefinite block, had unfairly come out of the blue with no warning, but this is of course irrelevant. Although it also hardly matters, as others pointed out, I have not been blocked or even warned for months as far as I am aware. On one issue though, while others might disagree, I do think it is highly relevant that, blocks and warnings apart, nobody has ever seen me to be so incompatible to the project as to instigate dispute resolution proceedings against me, or put me under any kind of special arrangement. Going forward though, I will accede to any arrangement or pre-condition that would see me be allowed to edit in future, with the trust of my colleagues. I don't think banishing users when their block log reaches a magic number teaches anybody anything except that it pays to keep cycling identities if you ever do get a block. I have made it a point never to hide my user history, I have never cycled my account and have never refactored my talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Because of the apparent honesty and forthrightness of the above, the indef block has already been amended to the original one week block. I hate to call this a "declined" unblock, more of an "declined immediate unblock, but happy to reduce from indef as per the will of community discussion." Note:this does not specifically preclude you from submitting another request for a more immediate unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am inclined to reset the block to the original one week. Any vehement objections? Tan | 39 02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good decision after the new comment above. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me think about it a day or two, this is much more reasonable. Prodego ^talk 03:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me too. This is a good content contributor. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, just to explain my reasoning, I spent a goodly amount of time reviewing the "difs" and contribution histories of the parties involved. That's what I do sometimes when I'm bored. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Just so you know, User:Gladys j cortez went ahead and reblocked for a week despite the unblock request being placed on hold. Since she didn't come by to leave you a note, I thought I'd do it. AniMate 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The apology is certainly a change in the user's behaviour. After a certain point though, an abrasive attitude to other users may very well turn off people who could otherwise have been valuable contributors and we end up with an imbalance. I hope Mick bears this in mind when dealing with other users in future. Alastairward (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about that not-leaving-a-note; I thought I had, as I'd definitely STARTED back to your page; unfortunately, I have this problem with WP where I tend to get lost. If only ppl didn't leave all these shiny little links lying around for me to click on, maybe I'd get from point A to point B sometimes..... Anyway, see you in about five days, eh? (And seriously--be careful.)GJC 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back (in a week)

Yo Mick, congratulations on your comments and as your pretty much a net asset to the wikipedia I hope you keep a lid on it in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best wording there. Prodego ^talk 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have no idea what you mean? Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's not have an argument on Mick's talk page. I think he's probably had enough drama here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Assistance

Listen MickMacNee, this seems to be your last chance.

If you want to bitch about the project or an editor, DO IT OFF WIKI in e-mails. Talk about how much so and so is such an ass. Lord knows editors talk off wiki all the time (according to many arbitrators) If no editors that you can talk to immediately come to mind, you can e-mail me, when my email is back up this same time tomorrow. around 12 AM EST.

The best and most influential editors control their emotions (which I myself am still learning after 4 years), the editors who can't get banned, and quickly forgotten.

Ikip 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Mick,

If you ever feel like you are under pressure or that circumstances in your life are affecting you on-wiki, send me an email via the wiki. I'm happy to listen - think of it as a way of blowing off steam to a sympathetic ear. The emails will go no further than you and me.

Anyway, you may not feel you want to do this, but if you do the offer is there.

Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an editor from the past, I dont get on much these days. But every so often I check on him to see a debate or two.

This guy MickMac should be admin IMO. Sickening that someone abusing admin, who I would bet has not contributed half as much, can clamp at the slightest opportunity like this. He is what makes wiki. He stretches the debates, highlights holes, he plays a part, he has never spammed, nor vandalised. He just contributed. Wiki needs him.

TBH I'm outraged at the power flexing of an indefinate ban.

He is hardly a bad user, just look at what he has contributed, the articles he has created.

--82.39.72.210 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight 82, there never has a ban, and the block is set to expire within a week. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit I've just realised its a week ban--82.39.72.210 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, oops. Tan | 39 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Block, not ban. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles he has created are mostly trivial. I cant wait for the admins to stop sitting on their hands and give out a full ban. It would be no great loss. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you had the decency to have an identity rather than sniping from the sidelines behind a number, 95.149.78.143. Ericoides (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Doing a Leeds

On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doing a Leeds, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting piece, thanks for contributing it MMN. Ericoides (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Crashgate

To be frank mate, I think you are a bit of a confrontational bastard, but excellent contributions like this and your work saving the France-Ireland game from deletion show that you are a great contributor to this website.

I get a bit would up by people like nationalist POV pushers, serial copyright infringers and lazy editors who can't even be bothered to source or categorise their articles despite numerous requests on their talkpage and I have become involved in a few wiki-conflicts in my time, not many in recent years though.

My advice is to "play the game", if some other editor winds you up, take a five minute break, chill out and ask for a 2nd opinion from one of the many people who recognise your value to the project. Also, try to remember that you can be forthright without being insulting. It is disappointing to have seen you provide the opportunity for admins to block you on so many occasions. It would be a real shame if you got banned over something stupid like telling someone to fuck off. (BTW feel free to tell me to fuck off if you disagree with my opening sentence, the word fuck is like a verbal punctuation mark in my workplace!) Regards King of the North East 00:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia mobile access

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia mobile access (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  Skomorokh  00:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An article you previously commented in is up for AFD again

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)#List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags Dream Focus 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're gonna move it, we could at least clean up the mess

Please help out. I am doing as many as I can, but there are lots of links to work through. See [4] and change [[Professional football]] to [[Professional American and Canadian football]]. Thanks. --Jayron32 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers

Hello! Your submission of Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North

I've just started a GA Review of Top Gear Race to the North. The first thing I tend to do when starting a review is run an automated script to check for overlinking, which is an MoS issue - Wikipedia:Linking. Linking London is a small thing, and it's not going to have any impact on the review; but it's not needed, and somebody will come along at some point and either manually or with some semi-automated script, unlink it, so we might as well do it now and get it over with! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok then....so tell me why London doesn't have to be linked, yet Edinburgh does? Because that's pretty much the only reason I reverted. It's no biggy, its not like one is a capital city and the other is not a capital city. Oh no..wait... MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it seems daft, but it's do with a general level of expectation in the reader. It is assumed that readers would know about London, but may be less secure in their knowledge on Edinburgh. New York City is not a capital city, but it would be expected that most readers would know about the place, while Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte is a capital city, but most readers would not know much about it, and may wish to click on a link to find out where it is. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

This is an interesting and attractive article with some decent research. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue who you think I've attacked, and considering I place myself in the 'chump' category described in the post, your warning is totally off base. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Calling supporters "chumps" is over the line. — 95.149.78.107 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lothian Buses

Hi

User: Alzarian16 is actually trying to improve the article. They are trying to do this by shortening the article as the tags suggest that it's too long. One of the ideas is that part of the article is moved to another article, so in effect the article is split. This is being discussed at Talk: Lothian Buses, your comments would be appreciated :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

done. MickMacNee (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! Just to let you know that I made some major changes to the article tonight (the untidiness of it has been annoying the hell out of me for some time now)! Anyway, I've posted some further ideas for improvement at Talk: Lothian Buses, your comments would be welcome and appreciated --5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK issue

Please look at the issue I've raised about your DYK nom. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

DYK for British Hero of the Holocaust

On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Hero of the Holocaust, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheonan (corvette) and 2010 Baengnyeong incident

Hi Mick, I'm not saying that the merge proposal is wrong, and it certainly hasn't been made in anything but good faith. It may be a bit premature, depending on how events unfold. We should get a good idea over the weekend whether or not the incident remains isolated or escalates. If the latter happens, there may be justification for separate articles on the ship and the incident. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Channel 4's Comedy Gala

An article that you have been involved in editing, Channel 4's Comedy Gala , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hi MickMacNee,

Thank you for your support. As you may have noticed, the discussion has now been archived here.

I care a lot about this case and its more general implications. Could you please let me know how I can escalate it? I have seen many admin abuses before and some of them were even more disturbing, but this stands out as one of the most indefensible ones.

I have left a similar note to Resolute.

Thanks. 124.87.97.84 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were you I would open a request for comment to judge whether the community thinks WP:NOBIGDEAL is still a principle of this site or not. If you write it, I'll co-sign. You can see from that ANI there is no point even talking to the admins who already think they are here to make policy, the only thing you ever get back is irrelevance or condescension, and when asked the hard questions, they go silent. Not one of them would survive a reconfirmation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. I have no experience in RFCs, but here is a possible start, feel free to improve or change radically:

It was suggested in this archived ANI that WP:NOBIGDEAL should be removed as obsolete, since some of us no longer perceive admins as mere peer editors with additional tools (and responsibilities), but more as having an inherently higher status, such that "admin discretion" and WP:IAR can trump consensus even where no explicit rationale is mentioned, for actions that are not justified by site policy.

I was wondering if we should post an RFC on WP:IAR instead of WP:ADMIN, since the pattern seems to be: admin is unwilling to admit/rectify despite their actions being disproportionate in light of policy, other admins by default close ranks and invoke IAR, "nothing to see here move along". Another pretty disgusting episode can be found here.

Finally, I am worried that this may end up with yet another "Right, WP:NOBIGDEAL stays, so what? That protection should stay anyway because... uh... it's a controversial BLP." Would invoking ArbCom be inappropriate? Let's face it, these people are not listening, they are making a mockery of consensus and defending the indefensible with no clear rationale at all. How could ArbCom sanction this behaviour?

Anyway, if you confirm that an RFC on NOBIGDEAL is the best way forward, by all means let's go with that. Thanks. 123.218.165.181 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility that I am contemplating is to open an RFC on WP:PP and leave friendly notices to everyone who took part of Casliber's WP:PP RFC, to inform them of the fact that their collective opinion and the will of the community is being disrespected. Even the editors who agreed with the proposal would hopefully realise that it comes from an admin desperate to retrospectively justify their unjustifiable protection(s). 123.218.165.181 (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely an issue surrounding NOBIGDEAL - you will see that while IAR is invoked in that thread, others were claiming that this sort of discretionary action is already within their powers. The real issue is the flipping off of anyone who attempts to find out under what policy and what precedent admins can and do take actions not specificaly allowed for in the actual policy wording - PP is just an example, there are others, and where the general response is - 'you aren't an admin, so wtf would you know?, and then the thread is generally ignored and left to get archived. Don't waste your time with arbcom. It should be an Rfc about NOBIGDEAL, it doesn't have to be attached to any specific page, just start this page: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/WP:NOBIGDEAL as a centralised exercise. As it is an Rfc though, your opening should be rephrased to be neutral - you should simply ask the community whether they still think NOBIGDEAL applies or not, and in a separate section, give your own view, for others to endorse or not, citing the Casliber thread or any others you have. Infact it doesn't even need a co-signer - I was thinking of User conduct rfcs, which get deleted if two people do not certify that there is an issue. You will likely just get dismissed because you are an IP or a troll though, as you've already seen, so I wouldn't waste too much time on it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Commando Memorial

On April 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Commando Memorial, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Channel 4's Comedy Gala

On April 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Channel 4's Comedy Gala, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of West Loch Disaster

Hello! Your submission of West Loch Disaster at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DustFormsWords (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mick, I'd really welcome it if you'd cut out the personal stuff. If you looked at my contributions to Wiki (even to your own pages such as British Hero of the Holocaust, Commando Memorial, West Loch etc) you'll see that my intention is simply to improve this encyclopedia. This extends to the discussion on international reactions. I do not appreciate your use of words such as "disgusting" and "offensive" with reference to my remarks. Of course I am sorry that you feel offended. I will not take any further part in those discussions on Poland etc, nor I will respond if you choose to make a response here. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that. Wikipedia isn't a war. Ascribing ulterior motives to people who makes suggestions you don't like just puts everybody off. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You can not appreciate it all you want. You made the remark not once, but twice. As I already said, I am not interested in what you have to say after that, certainly not while it still stands there masquerading as a debating point. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibside

Dear Mick, Having seen the Free Library piece, I understand the reason for your question. Their article does appear on the face of it to be a straight crib from Wikipedia AND THEY HAVE the brass neck to claim copyright protection for it. But to answer your question directly I can confirm that the wording is mine and was not copied from anywhere. RegardsOrdyg (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It's disappointing to see isn't it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Election debates

Hi Mick. In the Reception section do you think a bit of the reaction by the party leaders and the reaction of the SNP etc. should be included? I was thinking abou some of the reactions in this article. [5]. Thanks for weighing in on the article name btw. Leaky Caldron 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The more the merrier. As long as whatever is included is presented neutrally and in proper proportion, of course. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I've done a bit of wikignoming on the article today - mainly cutting out excess. Hope you approve. Leaky Caldron 17:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need my approval lol, I don't own the article. If I object to anything I'll be sure to edit war to infinity discuss it in a calm and civil manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I'm sure you would. I'm amazed at some of the opposes for the ITN - staggering lack of knowledge on UK current affairs. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It has just been posted. Leaky Caldron 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

HM

Mick, I agree with you on the naming thing, but you shouldn't see every opposing point as something to challenge- just try to calmly express why you disagree rather challenging them with "how is that relevant...". Why don't you look upon the new title as a step in the right direction rather than another obstacle? It's definitely worth having a discussion about it even if the result is to leave it where it is, but that discussion would be a lot better if it wasn't simply dominated by 2 or 3 of the strongest personalities trying to shout each other down, which is the way it seems to be heading atm. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not much of a fan of the baby steps approach, and I find that in Xfd, if people aren't given a robust challenge immediately, these things tend to steamroller. Look at the number of pointless USEFULL votes in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_17#Template:Expand, had that been nipped in the bud early, it would have gone very differently. . MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, though I don't necessarily agree with it. My worry about the latest RM though is that it will simply descend into a shouting contest, rather than a useful productive discussion on the merits of the title and the longer the discussion gets and the louder people shout, the less people will offer outside opinions. Just, er, consider that not everybody will agree with you- no matter how much you argue with them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting protestations against the new title, but not this kind. More important to me, is getting all the monarchial titles changed to Name number & Name number (country) where necessary. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That ship has sailed, per the Rfc. I know you revel in giving unique opinions which change on a whim, but thanks to you, the move request has been derailed into irrelevance. 'President Obama' has got sod all to do with what the common name of that article is frankly. As such, Wikipedia bumbles on with its second rate incompetence. MickMacNee (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident my plan for the monarchial titles will be adopted 'eventually'. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eventually is about right, as consensus has left you behind already on that point. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ye a little atheist faith. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An eye on the future: If you think the naming of the Elizabeth II article was/is a headache? Imagine if her successor chooses the name Charles III? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Charels doesn't want to be King, the Queen doesn't much want him to be King, and the Daily Express will explode if Camilla ever becomes Queen, so I think this is not going to be an issue in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Charlie wants to be King, alright. The Queen views are irrelevant, as parliament decides the succession. Let's hope he'll choose the name George VII. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ani

I've noticed that admin Tanthalas39 closed the thread on crash at your request, however it was done on Jack Merridew version which sends an extremely bad message that violating AfD decisions is not a big deal. And I would say that my message to the admin that closed it was not taken seriously but rather in the sense that I am another idiot who doesn't understand that closing is not an endorsment of that version, as if this was some kind of a content dispute. Closing admin apparently thinks it's boring, and another admin cracked a joke on me how I am asking for a wrong version to be returned to another wrong version, again not comprehending that this is not a content dispute. I am not sure what do do?--Avala (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't technically wrong. Tbh, you wouldn't be the first to feel like admins are treating you like an idiot, or are just being generally rude, just because they are right though, and my only suggestion on that is to disengage and file an alert at WP:WQA. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Doyle

Hello, I have left a message of the discussion page and not reverted anything. Please read this and add your feedback. --Cexycy (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for West Loch Disaster

On April 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article West Loch Disaster, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you, sir, for this excellent article! I found it to be quite an enjoyable read! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!. I couldn't quite believe there wasn't one already when I found out about it, so... MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And congrats on over 29.5K in page views!!--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap. I'm wikifamous at last! MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for British Inspiration Awards

On April 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Inspiration Awards, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Invicta disambig

Hi I saw that you undid my link to Rascalize as being 'original research' which seems a little odd. I am not too well versed in the ways of wiki so how should I have written the disambig - perhaps you could help improve it rather than simply wiping it off (the reason I'd come to wiki was to try and find out what the term meant having heard that song so I think that the link might be useful to others in reverse)

Thanks for clarifying

MMalikbek (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the album article and could see no reference backing up the claim that the title was, as you put on the disambiguation page, a "a seemingly nonsensical attempt to turn the term into a verb". Dab pages should not contain references, so the only way it can be included on it, is if you back up the claim in the song article first, with a proper reference to a reliable source. If this is just your theory as to what the usage in the song title was, then I'm afraid it is original research, and as such, has no place on Wikipedia, not in either the album article or the dab pagw. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

I notice that my edits was reverted without explanation. That's a violation of WP:BRD policy. I expect an explanation on the talk page shortly. If this isn't forthcoming you are in practice refusing to discuss the issue, and what you are doing is then pretty much edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You must have confused me with someone else, my action was accompanied by a perfectly legible edit summary which reflects the situation, which is still the case. I frankly don't care what you expect, your idea of what is and is not normal behaviour here baffles me. Everyone expects you not to repeat the same arguments at Afd, DRV, and beyond, when they do not succeed time and again. You are the very model of an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editor, who thinks chucking out the same ACRONYMS time and again, accompanied by endless argument by assertion that you are simply right, is an adequate debating technique. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, I assume normal behavior includes arguing for you position and following policy, but at least in this case this obviously something that gives you insults as the above. Funnily I only saw this because somebody created a fake account and pretended to be you. That fake account also insulted people. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV comments

Seeing your very clear & realistic comments at the DRV of Bigotgate, I would have thought you'd want to say the like at the main related DRV. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just cross link whichever post it is. I've certainly been treating both as the same issue. MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C

Please, Mick, calm down. Make your point rationally without getting so hostile about it. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly say I am being hostile. Sarastic or exasperated maybe, not hostile. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this and this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an occasional stalker who likes to impersonate me and get me in trouble. MickMacNee (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling it would be something like that. He's indef'd anyway with talk page and email blocked. Do you know who it is? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't even waste the time thinking about it, it could be some banned editor with an axe to grind with me (a couple come to mind), or I have even bizarrely read somewhere there are some trolls who just do this randomly to people they haven't even interacted with before. I could care less which tbh, they are hardly difficult to spot and deal with. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit they aren't usually dumb enough to make their first target an obviously still online admin. Let evolution deal with them, it's worked for centuries. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Lol! Probably not the last we'll see of him either, but as you say, they're not difficult to spot. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess we can add template the regulars to the growing list. MickMacNee (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not behave like a regular then? You accuse me of not knowing or understanding the policies, yet you consistently break them. Hey, here's an idea: Stay off the ad hominemns, and you won't get templated. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, this 'idea' of yours makes no sense at all in policy or practice. MickMacNee (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wind-up merchant

What ever happened to assuming good faith? The article is about the Premier League Golden Boot. They do not give an award to the top-scoring Englishman in the Premier League each season, so although it may be interesting to know, it's not appropriate to put that info in an article about a strictly defined award. – PeeJay 19:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was planning on mentioning Hamburg's progress in the "Route to the final" section; since Fulham were the ones to knock them out, I'm sure you'll agree that that is a more appropriate location for it. – PeeJay 06:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 UEFA Europa League Final

Thankyou for your updates to the background and teams sections - Dumelow (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected, but thanks nonetheless. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for World Cup Sculpture

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove <small> tags around <ref> tags

I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bobby Moore Sculpture

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Balmond

What is your interest in continuing to change this entry?

Because your text is rather cumbersome, and says nothing that is not already clear in the article, maybe? MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So what would be a compromise? Is it just the term architectural designer that you object to? Cecil Balmond is an architect and a designer and a structural engineer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer nothing rather than slashes and long lists, in what is in essence, a brief summary. 'Architectural designer' is meaningless to me, it sounds like a total redundancy, as I'm sure it does to any other reader. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying nothing is unacceptable - So can we compromise and use architect and structural engineer...(see NY Times:An Engineering Magician, Then (Presto) He’s an Architect November26, 2006)...? I'm sorry architectural designer is meaningless to you - but it is a viable career pursuit and those who engage it this field might find your position offensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. The ones who weren't bright enough to be able to become structural engineers maybe, but that's about it. The lede is a summary, every extra word you add that is meaningless to most readers, degrades its quality, and makes the article worse. Everything he does is grounded in him being a structural engineer first and foremost, and that is reflected both by him and by external coverage. His and Kapoors extended and overlapping fields is covered in the main body of the article. If you are only making these changes to the lede to big up the downtrodden world of 'architectural designers', then please don't, I'm sure Balmond really wouldn't give a monkeys really. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you speak for either of these gentlemen...and if you are correct about giving a monkey - back off.... Balmond's genius is far more reaching ..... again - what is your interest in defining Balmond so narrowly? Do you work for Anish Kapoor and wish to "big up" his role? That might be consider disingenuous...guess when there's nothing else there's always an insult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.131.253 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I am Kapoor's personal agent. Give over will you. I know all about Balmond, I wrote 99% of the article, and if you read it properly, you will see Balmond's role is fully acknowledged. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are Kapoor's personal agent your defining of Balmond is inappropriate. I am working with Balmond. Perhaps we can communicate more directly to avoid further discourse and collaborate? Could you provide your contact information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisse2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not Kapoor's agent. I was being sarcastic. I have no involvement with either man, and if you are working with Balmond, I suggest you read our conflict of interest policy. If you have no idea of our policies (such as what a lead section is), then I suggest you stay away from the article completely until you do. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Premier League Golden Boot

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN: Gyaneshwari Express derailment

-- tariqabjotu 09:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ITV first election debate logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ITV first election debate logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for ArcelorMittal Orbit

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI stuff

Just letting ya know. I'm neither a fan or an opponent of Giacomo. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at AN/I MickMac, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, and you've managed to put your points across in a way which makes sense :). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, you're one tough cookie. I'll be watching, to see how the Arbitration goes. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Historically it has been suggested that Giano be subjected to ever-lengthening blocks for his incivilities. Which doen't work so long as the lets-not-block-Giano camp overturns each block. So we have to address the fears around wheel-warring. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I refer you to a pertinent comment here, of 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC): "Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further?."  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Any community project must have, in order to survive and thrive, at its core the tenet which holds that while participants will have wildly differing interpretations of reputably verifiable facts, only when extremes in interpretation are discussed in an atmosphere of moderation and respect is anything of lasting value produced.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User conduct and such

Hi. You really want WP:RFC/U, not WP:AN. The goal here is a minimization of drama and some sort of orderly discussion. Presumably. Happy editing. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't want RFC/U, and I certainly don't think it would reduce drama. If you do, then suggest it at AN, rather than removing it wholesale. It's frankly a bit late to be talking about minimizing drama where Giano is concerned. MickMacNee (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar community discussion involving you not too long ago? I'm wondering where the moral authority is coming from. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to refresh my memory as to whether it was a full on community discussion. I recall it being a unilateral indef, overturned after discussion on my talk page. But I know for a fact I've never been the subject of admonishment in an arbitration case, unlike yourself, not once, but twice. So you know where you can go with your ideas about moral authority. And then you'd still have to point me to the policy that then disallows me from proposing a ban on Giano. MickMacNee (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's too funny btw that Eminem is performing Not Afraid live on BBC One right now. Very inspirational lyrics. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I have to use this new username. Could you please enable email. --Mydisakl (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't use email on wiki. Who are you and why do you want to contact me? MickMacNee (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let me just say then. Reports on editors are unaffective only if, ah nevermind. --Mydisakl (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

o.....k...... MickMacNee (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Workforce

Tremendous article!!--Bcp67 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sausages

Brilliant article i admire your love of sausage! --82.4.12.226 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

??????????? MickMacNee (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano and ANI

Just saw this: [6].

I understood your qualm to be with the apparent immunity to blocking afforded to Giano, rather than with Giano himself. On multiple occasions, he has been unblocked on flimsy or invalid grounds. Recently you said that the reversal of my block on the grounds that (basically) "Giano is unblockable" was wrong; this I would agree with. I would suggest that you address this issue instead of proposing Giano be banned, though in this I'm probably biased because as much as I disagree with his 'special status', I think he plays an invaluable role in our community. Moreover, my opinion is that he should be allowed to continue to fill this unique role, so long as he does so without resorting to personal attacks and other unpleasantness. Thoughts? AGK 19:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The ban proposal was suggested as a precursor to an arbitration case, so I gave it a punt but I didn't really think it would fly, and as you see, it didn't. So, as I said at ANI, the issue of the special treatment of Giano needs to be dealt with by the arbitration committee alone, because among a sufficient number of editors he has evidently developed a cult like status where such basic ideas like NPA don't exist for Giano, due to various warped ideas which usualy revolve around Truthiness or Biblical Justice or Fight The Power or other such Grade-A bollocks that have no role in deciding what people can and can't do as they contribute to the project. The arbitration case will have the sole goal of removing his special status which exists due to a minority of admins scuppering any attempt to block Giano on the prevent drama fallacy, so as to ensure that he has the same rights and repsonsibilities here as anybody else. These are basic standards frankly, and whatever anybody thinks, Vested Contributors like Giano are the biggest danger to the collective health of Wikipedia, and if it turns out that the committee don't agree, then its them that have to answer for that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A general comment: I regret admitting to watching events for the past few weeks while cooling my heels. Where the problem lies in any such situation is when:

1. with respect to "disruptive" editor A, admin X offers on-Wiki to be judge, jury and executioner, but for
2. "disruptive" editor B, aforesaid admin X advocates on-Wiki that (other) admins not rock the boat.

Editors A and B are not the root problem. As long as there are admins who choose to practice a double standard which institutionalizes the empowerment of disruption, WP will continue to lose good contributors and fail to keep new ones.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's in the lap of administrators, IMHO. They have to decide amongst themselves, whether or not they're gonna block an editor. The less WHEELING, the better for the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Workforce (horse)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

Why have you re-opened the AfD? If you disgree with the closure the correct action is to take it to WP:DRV. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've re-opened it because it was not a valid non-admin closure. The correct procedure in that case as far as I know is simply to re-open and wait for an admin closure, not to take it to DRV. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your actions in the AfD may be in breach of WP:DE. The article had been approved for DYK and placed in a queue. Accordingly, I've raised the issue at WP:ANI#Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Afd comments

Your repeated replies to the above Afd and subsequent review are becoming rather tedious. You have made your opinions very clear, and there should be no need for you to keep repeating them. Please have the good grace to allow other users to express their interpretations of the various guidelines without being constantly hassled. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I think a modicum of repetition is fine, if all you get from the other side is evasion and irrelevance. But if it annoys you, I shall restrict my respones to brand new arguments only, which I'm sure you will agree is a perfectly legitimate activity. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Alt account, or someone trolling you?

Hi Mickmacnee,

Is this you, or someone pretending to be you to stir up trouble: Special:Contributions/I AM eeNcaMkciM? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A common troll. A regular occurance, he always goes after me or GoodDay. No idea why, and don't really care tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

I feel your pain. We wrote WP:EVENT to try to help this kind of situation, and still editors just battle WP:GNG against WP:NOTNEWS. I would comment at DRV, but it's heading to a snow endorse so I won't waste my time. I'd leave the article a while, nine days is too close to the event for anyone to get real perspective. After a few weeks or months it'll be much more obvious if this was just a flash-in-the-pan or actually something worth writing about, and when the "zomg a train crash happened near me!" emotions are calmed down other options such as a merge will be more readily considered. Fences&Windows 23:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It goes right up to eleven on the wtf-ometer tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in to say I can understand your incredulity with this article, but there isn't much point carrying on the fight. Unfortunately at the moment it looks like you're rubbing people up the wrong way. Your prerogative of course, but it might be worth letting it go for now. Quantpole (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that. It's just it's pretty amazing people don't dismiss the reactions of people who get annoyed at having to explain their rationale as frankly irrelevant to a deletion debate, and want to ignore the fact that these people would rather try and shut me up than actually give a decent argument. Nobody has a decent policy backed case for keeping that article (some don't even seem to grasp that there is even a conflict between NOT#NEWS and GNG, which EVENT was written precisely to address), it's beyond obvious when you read some of the comments. Even ignoring opinions like the guy whose only endorsement rationale is to say 'stop trolling' - which is bloody trolling by definition, the quality of that debate is rather deficient all round tbh. Look at the latest endorsement- "I now believe that the incident is worthy of its own article" - with no explanation as to how or why. It's unbelievable that in 2010, Wikipedia is still deciding issues like this on basic vested interest crowd-sourcing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's practice and theory. The theory is that AfD goes by the strength of argument, but in practice that only really comes into play if the numbers on either side are pretty close (or there are lots of single purpose accounts). Trying to overcome this on a single article is very difficult to do. Maybe in a couple of weeks this should be raised at WT:AFD, when things are perhaps calmer and a more reasonable discussion can take place.

I must say also that there seems to be some sort of animosity between yourself and mjroots. I have no idea of the history between you two or who did what when, but the tone if the discussion wasn't exactly great, which hasn't helped matters. Quantpole (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re your reversion of the signals aspect info, I did revert you, but then reverted myself. Please see the talk page. Can we agree on some wording to cover both sources? Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

0.001%

"For 99.999% of other editors, there would have been a swift and predictable response to ..." - strike me out from your statistics, please. East of Borschov (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have proof that you would be exempt from even a warning if you called someone else a "daft troll", then I shall gladly oblige, although I think that at my chosen resolution, the quoted figure would not change even with your removal from such an account. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Game

Please explain your dismissal of Jonty Haywood's hypothesis of the origins of The Game as 'unreliable source'. Regardless of his involvement in the 'Porthemmet Beach hoax', if Jonty is positing this as a theory and not fact, how can you cite this as 'unreliable'? Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You tell me what makes him a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, even for just advancing his own theories? Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, specifically the section Self-published and questionable sources, Haywood is posting his hypothesis on his own website, he has no recognised qualifications in the field, no reputation for being reliable, and he is including claims about third parties, outside of any editorial control or fact checking scrutiny, in a way that would become the primary, and only, source for this proposed content. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

[sticks oar in] I like Haywood's site now that he's stopped spamming it into Wikipedia, but I'd not want it to be used explicitly as a source in the article. The origins theories are actually pretty well researched, but it's just fine as an external link. Fences&Windows 15:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the December 2008 article in the Metro about Haywood's site that caused various members of the CUSFS to contact him directly. If you're condemning him for posting these letters and other well-sourced items of his research on his own website, then - in your opinion - where should he post this information? If you won't allow the mention of the Finchley Central hypothesis on the Wikipedia article, at the very least allow me to add a mention of the various origin theories in the external links section, in addition to the link to his general site about the game. The proposed change would look like this:

• LoseTheGame.com: a site dedicated to The Game, including various theories on its origins

The reasoning is that the current external link only mentions the general site. The amount of research Haywood has performed into the origins of The Game (containing his and other theories) warrants a link specifically to that section. Is this acceptable? Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

According to our policy on External links, no. It's one site, one link. MickMacNee (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I remove the second link, would it be okay? I.e.:

• LoseTheGame.com: a site dedicated to The Game, including various theories on its origins

Again - this is to bring to the casual reader's attention that LoseTheGame.Com isn't only about the rules of "The Game". Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The name is sufficient. If people aren't intrigued enough by it, so be it. It is not Wikipedia's role to advertise other people's sites for them. MickMacNee (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for your words at [7] regarding the respect due to this WP:BLP and the fact that AFDs should not be used as a form of proxy to attack living persons in the nomination statement. I plan to bring this up for more discussion, after that whole thing is over. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you also see [8] ? -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup I was just bored and cruising the drama board, but that really is an astounding smear. Shocked it has even gone that far tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do? Suggestions? Advice? -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, [9]. Thoughts regarding this? -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Herostratus is an admin? Just wow is all you can say to that really. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of Falls of Cruachan derailment in West Highland Line article

Hello,

Can you please direct me to wherever it is that "people are arguing massively that this is historically notable"? Presumably the fact that they are doing so indicates that alternative views are being expressed. What steps are being taken to see that every other minor mishap to have occurred on this line over the years receives an equivalent level of coverage in the article? –Signalhead ^< T > 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13#Falls of Cruachan derailment. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Petition

"The page is accepted as is by hundreds of editors, respect that or take it off your watchlist"

I do respect those editors' views. I also respect other editors' dissenting views (the ones that you've continually removed from the page). Please explain what gives you (or anyone else) the right to maintain strict control over a page in the project namespace, allowing comments by users who agree with you and disallowing/reverting any and all edits by others. —David Levy 16:44/16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So start a counter-petition then, if you want the oppostion view to be counted. All of these opinions on the validity of the page have been hashed to death, even at Mfd, and 6 months down the line it's been signed by 133 people and has remained in WP space for 6 months. I call that sufficient acceptance not to have to kow-tow to your demands for an explanation for reverting a unilateral move of it into my user space. I am perfectly entitled to revert bold changes to any page. If you still disagree, you know what the correct procedures are. What needs an explanation if anything is your focus on this one page, when there are plenty of others out there without 'opposition' sections, that are also in WP space. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Obviously, I view this format as inappropriate, so your suggestion that I "start a counter-petition" amounts to advice that I abide by the "two wrongs make a right" principle. (I realize that you don't view the format as inappropriate, of course.)

2. As I've noted on several occasions, I agree with the crux of the document. (I object to some of its specific wording, but not to the underlying message.) That it's been signed by many others indicates that they agree (or generally agree) as well, not that they condone the suppression of contrary views.

3. At MfD, I opposed the page's deletion (a measure that I regard as counterproductive). I just did so again.

4. My above question is not a demand for an explanation for reverting my page move. It's a request for an explanation of why you (or anyone else) is entitled to create and maintain a Wikipedia project page on which only editors who agree with you are permitted to post comments (with all others summarily removed). Please don't claim that I'm the only person to raise this concern.

5. Having consulted Wikipedia:List of petitions, I'm aware of only one other non-historical petition from which an opposition section was removed (Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition), and its creator has stated on the talk page that he "[doesn't] mind where the opposes go, either on the mainpage or here" and invited actual discussion on the project page.

Perhaps I've overlooked other active petitions from which dissenting views have been barred, but I assure you that my intention is not to single out yours. —David Levy 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Scott might have said, it's not what happened in practice, as is documented on the PIAR talk page. I would hardly say the other petitions apart from that one are representative, they are either jokes, old old pages, or undersubscribed. These two are the defacto accepted format, when talking about widely accepted and serious petitions. My views were all documented on the talk page the many times this was discussed before, they haven't changed, so they don't bear repeated when they are asked for again when there has been no change in the opposition argument. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. That those other petitions are not comparable is my point. You stated that "there are plenty of others out there without 'opposition' sections," and questioned why I singled out Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. I'm responding that I'm unfamiliar with the "others" and didn't intentionally ignore them to target yours.

2. I don't recall you ever explaining why you believed that the project benefited from the dissenting comments' removal from the petition page. I only recall repeated statements to the effect of "this is the established format" (as you're reiterated above).

3. Why did you archive the talk page's contents (apart from the header templates), including all of the opposition not eliminated outright? What—other than further reducing the comments' prominence—did that accomplish? (This wasn't in instance in which the page was "too large" and older discussions stood in the way of newer ones.)

Do you intend to archive the older support comments as well? —David Levy 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just read your archival explanation on the MfD page. Obviously, I disagree with this pre-emptive measure.

However, I should state that despite my strong disagreement with many of your actions pertaining to this petition, I have assumed and continue to assume that you're acting in good faith. I don't want you to think that I'm accusing you of engaging in a "nefarious" plot.  :) —David Levy 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alex Rowe (soldier)

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup schedule

Hi, just wondering why you changed the section title "Beginning of knockout stage" (starting on Saturday 26 June) to "Knockout matches". The "knockout stage" (as per 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage) runs from 26 June through to the final on July 11. After your edit, it appears that "Knockout matches" are only from 26 June to 29 June, and it may even appear to some to be only on 26 June itself. Facts707 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To match the logic behind the others - the header describes what's underneath, , first round group matches , second round etc, knockout matches. I really can't see how people would think it didn't apply to the whole lot, but if you disagree, there's an ongoing section on the talk page, it's probably better to discuss it there. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. 95.149.77.132 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon

You don't HAVE to be a nice person, but it might help if you are. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm nice when not being messed around with non-policy argumentation and faux offence over a bit of abruptness on the interweb. The order of importance is - Reader > Policy > Niceness > Admin fraternalism. Not an unreasonable philosophy I'm sure you would agree. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I personally prefer to always start out with niceness and take it from there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit "War"

This is a warning for you to stop edit warring on the above article. If you want your version to remain, start a discusison on the talk page and get consensus for it, but I can categorically tell you right now, it is a blatant violation of NPOV, and it is simply ridiculously long to boot. I have no idea where you got this idea that it is Wikipedia's role to reflect the 'power' and 'gravitas' of an external source's entire quote in this way, but you are massively wrong. I am trimming it one more time, to restore the consensus situation per WP:BRD, namely, you were bold to add it, and it's presence is objected to, strongly, and has been removed pending discussion. If you reinstate it again, I will be asking at the edit warring noticeboard for an admin to remove your ability to carry on being disruptive until you accept that this is not how you resolve disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You sir, are the one who needs a reality check. You started the war with an arbitrary edit that has no consensus behind it. Simply because you object to a long quote does not mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that it is "ridiculous". As you are the one editing and changing the original post, you are the one who needs to open a talk page discussion and get a consensus. Your opinion is not the rule of law. Where do you find a "consensus situation" (based on WP:BRD) that conforms to your opinion about the edit. There isn't one, and your stating, however forcefully, that there is does not create one. How arrogant is it to assert that I was "bold to add it"? Does everything have to pass through your censorship filter in order to have a consensus? Show me where others are of the same opinion and I will abide by that, but I have looked and found none. The quote was part of the article long before you started editing it to fit your personal standards. If you find this disruptive, than that says more about your insecurity and arrogance than it does about my quote. Remember, YOU edited down a quote that YOU found "ridiculous" without any consensus to back it up. Before you go threatening people with banning, you should look to your own behaviour. How does my editing constitute "being disruptive" and your does not? You have changed my original work three times - isn't that is disruptive and unacceptable? I see no pending discussion, no attempt to find consensus, and no attempt on your part to do exactly what you are demanding of me. Until that is present, please stop threatening me meaninglessly - you say "it's presence is objected to, strongly," - by whom, precisely, besides yourself? Please list them so that I can see a consensus for your action. Absent that, please stop threatening people to get your way. It is unseemly and unnecessary. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is pretty clear, and WP:DR and WP:3RR are even clearer. I haven't threatened you at all, I've warned you what the consequences would be if you carried on edit warring. And sorry, but you aren't special, these consequences are what anyone in your position would be facing if they were acting in the same way. Do not fall into the trap of thinking the warning has anything to do with the validity of your content, it does not. But on that issue, if you think your content is valid, it will be a trivial matter to show it has support then wouldn't it? I await to be convinced, but based on my experience in editing thousands of other articles, I remain strongly skeptical that you have a proper handle on what is and isn't appropriate in this situation. You comments about how this one massive quote summarises everybody else's opinions nicely is just out and out editorialising tbh, very concerning. But let's be crystal clear, I am not required to begin that discussion for you, not in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have have made no effort to show that you have support for anything, yet seem to think that I need to show solid support for every word I write. That is a pathetic double standard. At any rate, you are correct - you don't have to have that discussion with me. I have posted this whole mess in its entirety on the edit war board and have reported you for edit warring. Please take it up with them. If they say that I am doing something wrong, I will certainly abide by that. However, you asserting your opinion and then arguing that it is the only correct choice is beyond arrogance. I will abide by the consensus that the edit warring board reaches. Please do not contact me again on this issue. Themoodyblue (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

N. Ireland

You may have missed my post on the talk page, so here it is. "This has nothing to do with Scotland. This has to do with you insisting that British should be included if Irish is. If you think both are wrong you should never be insisting on either of them. Give your argument, and sources, against the use of Irish and leave out the retaliatory nonsense". If you don't agree with that then I don't know what else to say. Jack forbes (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. It's not my primary choice, but I can argue for British on NI if the argument for Irish follows the exact same logic, i.e. that a demonym somehow is alright if it just describes part of the 'locality' (and locality is what it's all about if you look at all the materials). You will find precious little sources that even mention the d word, let alone ones that list what isn't one for x,y,z. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with primary choice. I actually don't care and don't know if Irish and N.Irish should be used. I do know that British should not be used for a demonym of N.Ireland. That's why I have reverted British from the infobox. You know that I'm right to do so. As I said, argue against the use of Irish if you must, but don't insist on false information being added. Jack forbes (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I never added it, so you'll have to answer to someone else for that. As you will see, I am vigourously arguing against Irish with common sense and policy backed points, but it's going in one ear and out the other with the repetition squad. MickMacNee (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And as said over there, if you come up with a reliably sourced and independently recognised definition of what a demonym is, then I'll go and see if it can be sourced for British, Irish, or Kangaroo. But I'm not interested in game playing where people get to demand sources for something they know doesn't exist, to support something they know can only be sourced to a primary source. MickMacNee (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary?

I have a funny way of leaving edit summaries in excitement. Besides, I like how "goal" sounds with an extended "o", I would have otherwise just said something like "Goal scored". But how does a null edit "clear" a "distracting edit summary"? It's still there, after all. CycloneGU (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, from watchlists. I get it. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then please calm down and get a bit of perspective, this isn't a football forum. It clears it from people's watchlists by not being the most recent edit they see. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I didn;t see that second reply, but there you go, correct. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably saved it as you started editing; did you get an edit conflict?

Game is looking like it might go into tiebreak. If this goes to penalty kick shootout, how do we track the scores; is the winning team just given the extra point and we put "tiebreak" in brackets under the score, or (4-3 shootout) or such? CycloneGU (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea. I'll raise it on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question on demonyms

Hello, Mick. I've had a closer look at your text in the collapsable box on the N.Ireland talk page. If I may suggest that you could uncollapse it and place it at the bottom in it's own section, perhaps witholding your own remarks until people have a chance to respond. If I may be so bold as to suggest that if you leave your anger/annoyance/frustration behind it may be easier for others to reply to your questions. I will say one thing though, I would have believed that N.Irish should have been the only demonym to be used. We now have that source for Irish, which you and others disagree with. This is for me the crux of the argument and why you are questioning it so often. I'm hoping a collegiate conversation pertaining to your questions may go some way to resolving this dispute. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The bottom of where? MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MickMacNee. You have new messages at Mo ainm's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI notices

Dear MickMacNee, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been taken care of. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't forget, it is just that you are a far too an excitable puppy, and you actualy edit conflicted with me as I went to leave it. Slow down next time. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mo ainm~Talk 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. I have never been more sure that you are who I think you are. No previous blocks my ass. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Noriega

I've looked at the information about Noriega and some of wikireader41's posts - sum total: you're right, the news about Noriega isn't anything special in his case and has actually been accrued over a long and relatively predictable time-line; yes, wikireader41 does make several unsubstantiated claims; and yes, it is important to distinguish the useful users from those whose I.Q. is less than their edit count. However, I still remain in support of this posting for the reasons I've stated above, and I still point out that our collective job here is not to post what's most popular but what's most Important. That is what separates us from other media, while the rest of the media in this world is busy bringing you what's popular because it pays more, we have the ability to actually report what matters, what is actually important to history. Also, I still say that the continuing purpose of Wikipedia will only be served if we all carry ourselves professionally. That's what WP:Civil is for. We have to at least accept the opinions given and if they're inept and stupid, then explain that to community so we all get it. If we go around demanding perfection and then flame on users for posting something, then all we will have accomplished is to make Wikipedia a small group of elitist a**holes who consider themselves to be the final word in information; like Britannica ;). All we will have done is to turn Wikipedia into another gay encyclopedia. We can't let douche-bags turn us into douche-bags, we're better than that, Wikipedia is better than that.Cwill151 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I missed your notes on your talk page until after I had posted this, my bad.

I couldn't agree more, except that ITN is not about deciding for ourselves what is and isn't important without at least some objective evidence. And I agree on the whole civ angle too, except when the cause of errors is not ineptitude or inexperience, but rather out and out fully self self-aware provocation/rule-breaking. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. And you're right about wikireader41, obvious troll... recommend another one for the scrap yard?Cwill151 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Another what? MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually have a question for you:

In regards to the "evidence" needed to prove that an issue is important enough to merit placement on ITN, aren't there at least some issues whose importance we have the ability to determine for ourselves, without any concrete evidence? To illustrate my point, two days ago I added an ITN candidate about the U.S. Government seizing the domains of websites accused of copyright infringement, you might remember. You opposed placement by citing the general lack of interest from world media surrounding the issue, and maybe you were right? If the standard of importance is measured by how many people care... then yes, perhaps it wasn't ITN worthy because no one gave it a second thought. But this is the point: this issue will very likely be important shortly. It's not hard to imagine this action being used as a judicial precedent to shut down other websites and file-sharing networks that deal in copyrighted material, and from there it's just that little, easy legislative step to the legal liability of private citizens who have or share copyrighted material. So, when people open their newspapers five or six years from now and read that due to a recent court ruling, ordinary citizens can be fined for possessing pirated media, and they wonder, "how did this happen?" "all I wanted to do was to watch an episode I missed from my favorite TV show, and now I've been convicted of a crime?"; they can read all about it on Wikipedia. They could look back and see (if it was posted) that we got it first, we knew what was actually important to the world even though no one gave a rat's a** about the story when it first came out. We could see the effect this would have on the world and so we posted it. My point being: I believe there are cases when media attention is irrelevant in deciding what is and what is not important to the world. Can't we sometimes take a story on it's own merits? Hindsight is always 20/20. Cwill151 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Put simply, no. Wikipedia's role is not to predict the future, or act as some kind of anti-hero against the mass media or the government. If it becomes a precedent, Wikipedia's only role is to record that in an article in an accurate and neutral manner, as a recorder of events, rather than a shaper of them. If you are here just to fight for copyright freedoms, you are on the wrong site. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "cleanup"

It's very difficult to make a comprehensive edit summary when I make blanket edits to articles. I agree that "cleanup" isn't exactly explanatory, but there just isn't enough room in the edit summary box to summarise what I've done. With regard to the World Cup final article, if anyone has aspirations of getting it to Good Article status and beyond, it really does need a solid cleanup, and consolidating sections like "Finalists" and "World Cup firsts" into a "Background" section makes perfect sense. Have a look at 2009 UEFA Champions League Final for similar style. – PeeJay 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The issues are going beyond specific motives, but I am pretty sure people have never before gotten away with the excuse of lack of space when their edit summaries become problematic. On the final article, it certainly won't become a GA if a 'Background' section contains info relating to after the event - and the relevant issue here is that this was made clear in my edit summary, which you either ignored, or simply didn't bother to even look for, before reverting, because there seems to be an assumption on your part that if it's you reverting something someone else has clearly changed, back to your preferred version, then it's a valid edit, and no summary is required at all, let alone a talk page discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, stop complaining, a lot of us use that term. – Michael (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Thierry Henry. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked without warning for making just two reverts of the same content, one [10] following an unexplained removal of the perfectly valid and policy compliant content, which is something which it is perfectly legitimate to revert, the other [11] with a fully explained edit summary responding to the finally provided ratinale in their second, complete revert. Then I made a partial third revert [12] which, based on the prior edit summaries, can in no way be considered a revert for the purposes of the edit warring principles, because it was clearly being made in an effort to move forward in a constructive manner, which, given the reverting editor singularly failed to show any willingness to use DR, seems perfectly reasonable. All in all, this sequence of events is in no way a classic edit war, and does not warrant immediate blocking of this nature, where the blockee has totally failed to engage with either me or the other party. What is more troubling about this block though, is that I am blocked, yet the other editor who made the initial no summary removal and revert, Chensiyuan (talk · contribs), has not been blocked. He simply went silent, and then returned, while in the mean time, another editor continued the dispute, an editor who evidently is held in high regard by Chensiyuan, and with whom he has collaborated with similar tag team reverts before on this same article. With that in mind, it's hard to see this sequence of events as anything other than a way to remove one party of a dispute, while giving tacit approval to the other. I accept the second and third edit summaries maybe lacking in civility, but the points about their nature w.r.t. edit warring violations in principle is valid, and that tone must be seen in the context that the Thierry Henry article has been, for an extremely long time now, under the tag team ownership of those two editors, and their modus operandi based on tonight's evidence seems to be to say nothing initially in edit summaries to rack up the numbers (and some of his other edit summries bear examination to see his nature, calling people's additions crap and junk, he has clearly got serious issues with not being able to follow DR, and seems to think anyone who disagrees with him over the precise content and prose of that article is an 'irresponsible editor'), nor use the talk page as it becomes clear to them that their edits are wholly disputed, and instead just game the opponent into being blocked, although I obviously dispute I've even done anything to be blocked in that regard, not when one examines my edit summaries, and my intent, at least behind the third, partial, revert, if taking the first two as literal and disruptive edit warring, which is also extremely harsh, and especially naive without looking at the treatment of Chensiyuan, who is not even warned even now bear in mind. Apparently, seeing the assymetry in this block, it seems to be a successful strategy of theirs. If one or both comes here to stand up for me and protest this clear unfairness in the face of their gaming and outright hostile behaviour as they go about their ownership tasks at that article, I might reconsider, but I am not holding my breath. And before anyone thinks of declining with a 'NOTTHEM', my primary unblock rationale is at the start, and is all about my actions alone, I don't need or want their actions to even come into it, if you are one of those admins who is so inclined to take such an approach, however unfair and amoral that may be. The rest is just background context for those who may be unaware of the history of that article and these editor's involvement in it, and to explain why I might start swearing very soon if an admin arrive here and effectively flips me off without reading any of this.

Decline reason:

Let's do this point by point:

• You did in fact edit war regardless of 3RR This edit summary [13] is basically a declaration of your intent to edit war
• You could have requested page protection instead, as I'm sure you are aware
• The other user you mention has in fact been blocked
• You are obviously also aware of NOTTHEM, yet you went there anyway
• Your request could easily have gotten you the old WP:TLDR "flip off" but I did in fact read every word of it. As you mentioned, only the first part was actually an unblock request, the rest is a rant that ignores the reason for your block.
• Please consider proper WP:DR and/or WP:RPP in the future
• Swear at me all you want, I can take it.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mick, one of the key things to remember is that you're a seasoned and respected enough editor that you know that it does not take passing WP:3RR in order to be guilty of an edit war - the 3rd revert is merely a bright line. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, granted, the other editor was not blocked at the time of the request -- it took a couple more reverts for me to be sure he was past the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's no longer a valid point, if it ever was one. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who forced you?

I am just curious!--Mike Cline (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

U. MickMacNee (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Giolias

He was a prominent investigative journalist who was assassinated just before releasing a damning report into corruption. It's patently obvious he's notable - if he hadn't been killed he'd survive an AfD without a hitch. It is hardly surprising that, one day after his assassination, most of the media is, y'know, focusing on the assassination. Rebecca (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we will have to wait for the biographical material then, and let readers just guess why there is none there presently. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, you usually provide a fine counterpoint to my opinions. Just to get an idea of how the Giolias article is going, would you take a quick look at it as it is currently? What would be needed in your estimation to make it postable/worthwhile? I'll do my best to satisfy your requests should you make them. Cheers Cwill151 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It can't credibly be called a biography right now imho. I suggest moving it back to Assassination of Sokratis Giolias, reverting to the old headers and structure, and then adding a bit more info in all of them. And if that info really isn't out there in the current news coverage, then per my ITN comments, I don't think it qualifies as a Main Page candidate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see very much on the web about him with a Google to exclude stuff on his death so I agree with MickMacNee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Thank y'all. Cwill151 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Nelsons Well Good Show.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Kasai River disaster

--Courcelles (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just to say that I appreciate your calm, civil discussion and interaction with other editors over the issue of the list of names of passengers in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your appreciation is appreciated. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Motorcycles in the United Kingdom fire services

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

External link

Hi Mick. First apologies for the words a friend of mine used earlier concerning the removal of an external link on the Andy McNab page. I understand you are opposed to the presence of this link. Since Grey Man's Land is the best and complete source of information on McNab you can find on Internet I believe it's a valuable addition. Our main goal is to promote McNabs work and give all the latest info (our News Page) on his projects, book signings, new published books etc. Things that are not to be added to the page itself but is still very valuable to those who want to know more about Andy McNab and to know about upcoming projects. As this is nowhere elsewhere on the Net, I'd like you to reconsider, but at least explain why you believe this link should not be there. Thanks and kind regards ACatharina (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO. Wikipedia does not allow External Links to simple fansites that are not written by a recognised authority, and I have not been able to verify who writes that site, and it very clearly states it is unauthorised and unnofficial. In addition, it appears to be a custom frontage for an independent Amazon seller, which is also not a site which is allowable as an External Link. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the fansite part, it is indeed an unofficial site. Fact remains though that it's the best source on McNab information you will find on Internet and especialy since McNabs official site if off line it is really the ONLY source if you want to know more about upcoming projects, personal appearances, interviews etc - all things people are very likely interested in if they take the trouble to find Andy McNab on Wikipedia. I still think its a valuable addition for people who are looking for more information that cannot be added to the Wiki page. The Amazon thing.. well that's just something we started recently to try to get at least a little bit of the expenses back that the site cost us to built and is costing to maintain. I'll tell you the result after a few months..3 Euros! :-)) Seriously, we're NOT commercial. Our main goal was, is and will be to provide information about Andy McNab! Thanks for your reply Mick! ACatharina (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, while I appreciate the spirit behind WP:ELNO, this link looks to be a useful and valid addition to the page, especially in light of there being no 'official' alternative - Alison ^❤ 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see how it passes ELNO, but I see no point having further discussion here, so I've kicked it over to the External links Noticeboard here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please tone down your comments. No need to pass judgement on others. RadioFan (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No thank you. I will pass judgement on anyone who has no clue about the policies and principles that underpin our title methodologies, and simply want to make it up as they go along, and then claim that is a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Although I wouldn't have posted you a template as RF has above, I wanted to let you know that another editor has complained to me about your conduct. I haven't looked into the matter yet, but as a preliminary measure, can you possibly tone down any interpersonal disputes you may be having? These things are in the eye of the beholder, and as hard as it is to accept that one's own behavior has been less than perfect, it can be an opportunity to grow and all that. Anyway, just a friendly note that someone hasn't appreciated the way you've comported yourself. What exactly is the problem you are having? Maybe we can sort it out. I hope so. --John (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue was, some people wanted to rename the article 2010 Alaska plane crash, but instead of justifying their move wrt policy, or answering anybody else's policy based objections, they wanted to argue from a position of pure POV, or worse, from positions that directly contradict policy. Well, almost everyone. Your 'complainant' (I'm liking the phrasing of his complaint btw) BilCat instead wanted to just make sarcastic remarks and bitch on about civility. I wasn't too interested seeing as simple civility never made anybody's actual arguments any more cluefull, and is usualy just brought out as an excuse for their failure to defeat the counter-points, and presumably not satisfied with this logic, he just got the hump, and now seems to want to badmouth me across the pedia to anybody that will listen. Anyway, the article got renamed, even though nobody can really justify it except for vague waves to a consensus of a ship of fools, but I no longer wish to labour the point, so it looks to be over as an issue, unless I catch Bilcat doing any more trashtalk on other people's talk pages behind my back, thinly disguised as commentary on the social issues that face Wikipedia today. Still, he's the one who knows about civility and all that....., so I'm sure that's not incivil behaviour at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont normally only use templates for clear cut things like vandalism (which this is not) but this template says it pretty well. One of the building blocks of Wikipedia is assuming good faith amongst editors. Most people are trying to help and keeping that in mind will help prevent needless conflict. As others have noted, your tone in these discussions is the primary problem here. We can disagree, but let's please be civil about it.--RadioFan (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove other's comments from talk pages such as was done here.--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mick was right to remove that nonsense from the talkpage. It was nothing but plain-and-simple disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, personal attacks, especially from random IPs, can be pretty much bitbucketed at will. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can only echo what m'lernud colleagues said. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MickMacNee/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

You made a comment at WT:BISE which I removed here. I do not need editorialising, nor do I need an annotated version of the page. I can read, I can see what is going on, and your assistance in helping me understand is not required. TFOWR 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick attacking someone for not be civil is really the pot calling the kettle black. Perhaps you could explain this attack not on one BUT two editors. Bjmullan (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BI

Mick, I guess I'm going to be blocked for supporting you. Ne'er mind. Good luck! LemonMonday Talk 22:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should try and be nice there and follow the rules lol, WT:BISE can help undo some of the damage that has been done in recent years during the crusades if the issues are focused on. Getting yourself blocked will solve nothing, even if you feel better in the short term for speaking your mind, think more of the long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

You seem to have attracted an impersonator. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery I suppose you should be please ;-) They're blocked anyway. Let me know if you see any more. TFOWR 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just some sadfuck who has a hard-on for me, and tries it on about once a month. I probably bitch-slapped him in a past dispute and he's never gotten over it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. TFOWR 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to look that hard, he's not so bright tbh. I think 5 edits before being blocked might be his record actually. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

AIRES accident

I've added a bit on the METAR, but put the code in the ref. I hope that you find this acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my talkpage intrusion, but in my opinion, a note, akin to that we used for Airblue Flight 202, is ideal, because it keeps the aviation community happy, preserves the encyclopedic nature of the METAR info, and is accessible to those who wish to access it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Hi there - I don't believe we've interacted before, but I just saw your comments at WT:ITN here[14][15] and thought I should remind you about our WP:Civility policy. Clearly this is an issue you feel strongly about, but that doesn't justify talk about 'patronising bollocks' and 'poxy countries'. Try to remember to keep cool in future, and if you're feeling stressed, take a wikibreak or edit elsewhere rather than continue with the dispute that's annoying you. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you maybe need to read the policy you are trying to educate me about. So, thanks, but no thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's look at this edit

Your edit summary says "rm fatality name per BLP, no encyclopoedic reason for inclusion"

She is dead. Once someone is dead, BLP has no effect for that person whatsoever.

Also the fact that she is the only one to die means that her name warrants special attention for inclusion. If 20 people died, one wouldn't make a point of listing all of their names in that paragraph. But she is the only one dead, so her name warrants special attention.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, BLP still applies whether someone is dead or not, due to the potential for distress of relatives or such like. And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning. If you disagree, do not edit war over it, follow BRD and file for a third opinion on the talk page, but this is how it's always been as far as I know. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mick here. WP:BLP states, "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased". Previously, BLP policy also explicitly stated it applied to the recently deceased, but that seems to have been removed. Hmmm - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Using what you quoted, Alison, BLP doesn't cover dead people. BLP policy clearly says "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased" period, despite the second sentence. The second sentence is something to consider, but it itself is not a part of BLP.

But what implications would apply in this case? If it was something scandalous or something that could affect a court case, that would be one thing. But I don't see what is contentious about saying that she died of a heart attack.

I noted this edit. I conclude that while the rationale was disputed, ultimately, based on WP:BLP, my rationale that BLP does not apply is the factually correct position, based on the statement that Alison quoted. Even though Alison's "third opinion" was to exclude the name, the two sentences she copied clearly underscore the fact that my rationale (BLP does not apply) is correct.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the talk page part about "recently deceased" people Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_17#Applications_for_the_Dead_or_Recently_Deceased WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For matters that are still under dispute:

"And no, her being the only dead person does not convey any special status, her name is completely irrelevant to the article, and does not warrant mentioning." - AIRES's #2 press release took special care to mentioned her name exclusively, before listing the people who lived. Newspaper accounts also make it clear she was the only person to die:

Voice of America: "Authorities said the fatality in the incident was a Colombian woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, who had a heart attack."

Associated Press at Dubuque Telegraph Herald: "the only one killed was a 68-year-old woman, Amar Fernandez de Barreto, San Andres Gov. Pedro Gallardo said."

"If you disagree, do not edit war over it," My standard practice is to revert once and explain why I reverted, assuming that the dispute will stop after that one revert. Then if someone still disputes it, then I begin the dispute resolution process. One of the reasons why I reverted was because the "this is covered by BLP" portion of your rationale was clearly incorrect. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how you read that instruction as not being part of the policy. It doesn't refer to any other policy, we don't have any other pages dealing with writing about the recently deceased, and BLP is all about consideration for living people, including relatives, so pretty clearly, BLP applies here. And the archive discussion only backs that up - as living relatives likely exist. But even more generally, even if you don't think it does apply, you still have to convince us that there is an encyclopoedic point to mentioning the name in the article, as I simply cannot see what it is. Of course newspapers and the airline mentioned her name, and the reasons for that are obvious, but that is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What is of information value to a newspaper is not necessarily what is of information value to an encyclopoedia. It has absolutely no value to the article or the reader that I can see, or that you have explained for me. Please carry on this discussion at the article talk page if you want to disagree further, as that is the correct place for it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I will continue talking about the BLP portions at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP

I will start a talk page discussion about your other points once the BLP matter is clarified.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-BLP discussion: Talk:AIRES_Flight_8250#Naming the sole dead person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links to continuations of discussions will be added above. Normally one shouldn't edit archives, but the archive here needs to include links to where the discussion continues. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN for France national football team

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Black ball final

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page. Thanks, _wjemather^bigissue 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The black ball final. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _wjemather^bigissue 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know all about 3RR, just like I know about BRD. If you are not too busy dishing out templates to regulars, then bring a better reason for your proposed change to the discussion. Being supported by guidelines = Good. Not being the only one who doesn't understand it, but using that as justification anyway = Bad. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see from your block log that you are well aware of the concept of edit warring but still choose to go ahead and do it anyway. _wjemather^bigissue 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

3RR report Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Although you haven't been offered the opportunity you would be able to revert your last edit. Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, my notification to you must have got caught in an edit conflict with your reply above. _wjemather^bigissue 02:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE

I removed part of your post(s) here. (I removed part of another editor's post(s) too). I realise the pair of you have issues with each other, but frankly I do not care very much. Both of you are being disruptive. I've now closed the entire thread with no action taken - instead of locating sources the pair of you have bickered and I've had enough. If you two can't disengage of your own accords I'll enforce disengagement. I'd prefer to have some sort of topic-ban option to keep the pair of you off WT:BISE but in the absence of that I'll settle for a block. TFOWR 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ITN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
[16] Doc Quintana (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Civility", ANI, ITN etc

Mick, I know you're not my biggest fan, but I've come here, not as an admin but just as a fellow editor, to just ask you to consider the way you say things and how that may be perceived by others. I don't doubt that grudges and personal vendettas have their own role to play in many of the conflicts you find yourself in and in the events that lead up to the ANI thread. I also know that there is at least one nutter who likes to create accounts to impersonate you, hence our friend MickMacNee3. However, if you could dial down the tone of some of your posts, such as (but not exclusively), those to WP:ITN/C, I, on a personal level, would be very grateful. The irony is that the points you make are often correct, but the way you express them is not conducive to healthy debate of the point and, in fact, detracts from the validity of the point you're making. I've no problem if you want to wipe this from your talk page or make no reply, but please consider it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Like HJ, feel free to remove this comment, no hard feelings, if you like. But I agree with HJ above. I'd also say that, yeah, you make excellent points and you are right most of the time. I know that I'm more likely to respond to logic expressed ... unconfrontationally ... than our current headbanging. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are both right, I am awesome. LOL. Serously, good points well made, but I'm not such a fool not to know that already. It's all good in the hood today. MickMacNee (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What spooks me, is that bloke out there, who keeps making those dumb imitation accounts of you & me. The imitator certainly seems to have hard feelings for both of us, eeek. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly spooky, Mick is just a celebrity angry editor by this stage and attracts a certain fan base it seems. It's just puzzling that other editors can say as much, in far fewer words, with less apparent rage than Mick does. It kind of makes his comments on talk pages harder to spend time reading. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of aircraft accidents

I've proposed an addition to the essay WP:AIRCRASH at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Automatic notability. Your comments are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stig (given name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Stig (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Stig. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Actors portrayed posthumously

Category:Actors portrayed posthumously, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

ITN for Iraq War

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive behaviour at AfD. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. "it makes me question your basic competency as an editor" is going a bit beyond the pale SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "his total inability to understand WP:AFD" -- umm, I think you're missing something here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I might suggest you focus on the issue at hand and not other editors (or at the very least refrain from the personal attacks, because you're no use to the project if you're blocked) you'd probably find the discussion more productive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, because I cannot raise the issue at hand if I have the threat of a block hanging over my head for objecting to Mjroots continued and unjustified belief that my conduct is in violation of WP:AFD. I refuse to be intimidated and hamstrung in this way, for doing nothing wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you refrain from comments like "it makes me question your basic competency as an editor", you won't be blocked. If you're blocked unjustly, I'll unblock you myself, but I can't help you if you make comments like that. You're smart enough to know where the line is, so stay the right side of it and there won't be a problem. FWiW, I agree that your actions are in not in violation of AfD policy, though you could make your point a little more civilly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RFCs

I've added my response to the RFC you raised against me. It is now down to the community as to whether or not they certify the RFC. I have raised on the talk page the issue of another editor adding you as certifying the RFC, and also asked at AN for a review of this.

You mentioned a possible RFC on the notability of aircraft crashes. I agree that this is probably a good idea as the essay WP:AIRCRASH isn't as widely accepted now as it was in the past, and has a few holes.

What I'd like to do, is to see if we can agree on a minimum threshold of notaility. This would mainly be size based, with a lower size requirement going back in time. Deaths can also be considered for notability purposes. I think that once we know exactly where each other stands, then there will be less chance of misunderstandings as to what each other considers notable or non-notable, thus avoiding disputes.

Are you willing to engage with me in trying to establish some possible parameters which can then be presented at RFC of elsewhere? Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get an agreement on the core issue which is notability of air crashes does seem like the best way forward to resolve all of this. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to keep it simple, using aviation industry based weight bands. I'm open to discussion of anything I wrote at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents on the talk page of that page. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your response to the Rfc, I am not minded to cooperate with you in the slightest, because, in the words of Sarek, you continually missapply wp:civil and wp:afd. I have not remotely bullied editors, let alone harrassed them. These are very serious accusations. If I have breached civil, it is in the most mild of terms - such as calling an argument 'rubbish', but in context, the specific argument made was proveably false, which is in of itself a breach of wp:civil. My level of incivility does not justify your attacks on me, and the fact you still make these claims, while doing nothing about it, and not accepting nobody else wants to do anything about it, is again, a breach of wp:civil. Claiming other people support you in these claims, when they clearly said nothing of the sort, is again, a breach of wp:civil - "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors."..."if there is an ongoing problem you can't resolve....take it to dispute resolution". Infact, what makes your stance look particularly odd, is that there are a hundred and one breaches of wp:civil in those Afds that go completely unnoticed, such as:

• "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information" - how many times has the AIRCRASH essay been cited as a Guideline. How many times have people claimed fatal hull losses are notable according to 'the guidelines'?

• "ignoring the positions and conclusions of others" - How many times have people voted by simply ignoring the fact that the nomination is NOT#NEWS, and that the GNG is a presumption which cannot over-ride WP:NOT?

• "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative....and to be responsive to good-faith questions". To quote one person's reply to having his rationale challenged, - "don't be ridiculous", which went totally uncommented on.

• "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help, not hurt the project." - how many times have trolls and other dickheads been allowed to attach nefarious and provably false motives to my nominations?

And that's all before we even get into why basic invalid/hand wave/assertion votes are apparently not even being properly weighted by the closers, or at Drv, which is an extremely obvious violation of wp:afd.

So in conclusion, if you want your stance on wp:civil and wp:afd, and your continued allegations against me, to look like anything more than just a transparent attempt at eliminating an opponent, how about next time you ensure the policy is actually enforced, and all of it, with the first step being, as recommended in wp:civil, being to actually note it at the time, like other admins do [17], albeit with little apparent effect [18], and not wait a while and then try and propose wholly innappropriate 'sanctions' at ANI. Unless or until that happens, I think I will probably just progress my own content rfc, if and when. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Strike it now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant of course to say, using your definition of how to make a non PA comment on a user's understanding of policy, but if you took it literally as a quote, then it is so struck. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I can't force you to co-operate with me in trying to find some middle ground. I won't make the mistake of letting incivil interaction go unchallenged in future. Warnings will be issued and further action taken if necessary. As you are well aware, any editor may remove a warning from their talk page. Doing so indicates that the warning has been seen, and is understood.

I'm not trying to eliminate you as an opponent. You do make some good contributions to Wikipedia. The offer to comment on my thoughts re the notability of aircraft accidents remains open. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To let you know, I have certified but provided my own view at the RfC. -- ۩ Mask 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk)

Refactoring other's comments

I will be reporting your recent actions in refactoring comments made on this discussion page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

You should have waited. I could have told you how that was going to go tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Premier League FAR

Hi. In relation to your comments here, can I reiterate Woody's call for you to participate in the Premier League featured article review? We do seem to have got bogged down with stylistic issues when the article is clearly lacking in more substantive respects. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If I find time, but FARs are not really my thing tbh. I think I pretty much covered it, my main objection was the lumping together of dissimilar info and the loss of info. MickMacNee (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just stating that on the FAR page would be helpful in itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FUCK

Thought you might want to know that WP:FUCK is up for MfD, since you commented before on its talk page. Historically, since many opposed to the essay do not watch the page, they don't know when it hits MfD. The last MfD was speedy kept after being open just a few hours IIRC. I'm trying to get a constructive dialog going between the various opinions, and this is starting to happen. You can find it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) if you care to comment. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wind Jet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey man, you seem to be getting a little upset at that AfD. While the purpose of AfD is to discuss the articles, you're not going to win any points by a) arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, or b) telling the closing admin what he should or should not pay attention to. Of course, both are within your rights... but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. At this point you can rest assured that every visitor to that page will be well aware of your point of view, and for the sake of your own happiness, you would probably do well just to walk away from it and let it unfold however it will. If the article should be deleted, other editors will take up the cause. If it shouldn't be deleted, there's no use wasting any more time there. Not saying you can't, just saying you shouldn't. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather you just clarified your rationale than give me advice. The only thing I get upset about is people ignorantly piggy backing on Afd voting rationales that for all the world appear to contradict both policy, and their own logic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that my rationale is quite clear, and that everyone else who is "piggy backing" simply understands and agrees with it? I haven't responded there because I've found that in AfDs it's best to address the issue, not individuals. If something I said was really out of whack, that would be one thing. But since nobody else seems to be confused by what I wrote, and since you have argued with everybody for one reason or another, it's hard to see how a reply would help anything. I've voiced my opinion and I don't feel the need to defend it against all challengers; there are plenty of better things to spend my time on around here. All I did was give you the same advice I follow myself. It works. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, 'keep, it's notable, and we should wait to see if it becomes notable' really is out of whack. As is your idea that I nominated this because nobody died. A reply would make it clear to everyone, not just the piggybackers, that you really do know what you are on about, and have really attempted to address the deletion rationale. If you don't, then that's a pretty easy angle of attack for me in a DRV, if the closer doesn't bother to engage his brain when reviewing that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "we should wait to see if it becomes notable". My meaning—which was apparently clear to everyone else but you—was that it is notable (by virtue of broad, international news coverage) and that we should wait to see what more comes of it. Notability can always increase as time goes by and further analysis comes in, but that doesn't mean it isn't also notable now. The two are not contradictory, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the very argumentative nominator happens to be the only person who claims not to understand that.

I'm not worried about your "angle of attack" at DRV, except to say that the fact that you look at this as a battle says a lot about your frame of mind. You're taking this too personally. I am by no means required to address the deletion rationale if I dismiss it out of hand; if I can make a case for why it should be kept (which I did), that's all I need to do. I said what I wanted to say and I'm comfortable with it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this was your intention. I think it's pretty obvious from your nomination that you wanted to wait to see if it became notable, hence the 'keep, for now'. If you simply thought it was notable right now, you would have just said so, and not bothered with the rest of your post, as it was completely irrelevant. You can dismiss the deletion rationale all you want and make up whatever case you like, but EVENT is the guideline which was written to combine the GNG for current events, so I think that is a pretty bizarre thing to do in an Afd on an article about a current event. The only remotely relevant part of your keep rationale was where you said "verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources". It's pretty weak, simply a stock statement trotted out parrot like by everybody and anybody, and as such, it does not convince that you've even read the article, let alone are confident that you can actually justify it's exsitence here wrt actual policy wording and theory, by expanding on your rationale in the proper way. You can be comfortable with this approach all you want, you can even believe it's a good way to make a case in an Afd, but it really isn't, according to all our policies and guidelines on the practices and purposes of the venue. And this sort of thing is precisely why DRV exists, to stop lazy admins making the mistake of taking this sort of non-argument as read. It is probably about as far from being all you need to do, as if you had just rocked up and given a basic WP:JN vote. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr

I tell you what: You go ahead and rage, and argue with everybody, and file a DRV, and argue some more, and I'll leave what I wrote there, move on to other things, and when this is all over we'll see which of us is happier. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck about happiness? I'm only concerned with having articles and processes adhere to policy. If that's impossible because people like yourself would rather fool around giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards, so be it. It definitely won't be me who suffers the consequences in the long run. I really hope you haven't invested a lot of time here writing and defending articles that fail EVENT, because one day they will all be gone, either that, or Wikipedia will be gone. Either way, my happiness is completely irrelevant. Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if you don't enjoy editing here, there's no point. The world is not going to say, "Thank god some heroic soul took a stand to get rid of that accursed Wind Jet article. It had really been rubbing me the wrong way." Nobody cares about you or the work you do here; case in point, I've been here a damn sight longer than you, I've written a good number of articles, taken more than my share of images, and made thousands of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, not to mention all the work I've done as an administrator... and you don't care at all. See? But it doesn't matter that you don't care, because I'm enjoying myself. That's the key. I don't know what "consequences" you think I'm going to suffer... People like me not giving a shit about people like you is what makes the Wiki go 'round. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh. Maybe you've been here so long that you really don't know what you are doing any more, and are just happy to mess around and have fun irregardless, but maybe you haven't kept abreast with what the Wikipedia of 2010 actually is, and how it's basic operations like Afd work now. EVENT was written in 2009 - read it, and get with the programme, and don't pretend that simply giving sub-standard arguments and having fun is what flies here for decent practice anymore. Playtime's over. I don't care about what you've done, and you don't care, or more likely, have no idea, what I've done here. So what, as you say. I'm fine with that. So you're here for happiness, good for you. I think that's pretty sad myself though. I get my happiness in the real world, I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually if this site still wants to be called a serious reference work and not a fancruft database. I could give a monkeys if anybody notices me for doing so, as long as they have their own shit in order and are doing good work. It's hilarious that you thought I was talking about consequences for you. Again, that just about sums it up. Now, have your last word, but then kindly just do one, I've had it with you. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Looks angry, though. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You read it. Go and have fun with an article somewhere, and stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Bzuk

I am not sure why you are using my talk page as a Mick forum? You have a propensity to dispel vast amounts of verbiage at any detractor but surely there is a better place to spew, perhaps at your arbcom?! FWiW, I will be archiving the recent exchanges and have no interest in maintaining a relationship with you. Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Ask Mjroots. He's the one who turned up at your page, proclaiming I'm 'still at it'. [19]. Maybe he thinks you are someone else, I've no idea. Such is his conduct, I'm just forced to follow him around and try and set the record straight wherever I find him bad mouthing me on any given day. I want no relationship with you at all. If you just make sure when you contrubute to Afd's you have read and understood the relevant distructions beforehand, then I'm sure we'll never have to personaly interact ever. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

MickMacNee, exactly what administrative contributions at AfDs do you mean? As I stated in my RFC, my contributions at AfD are in my capacity as an editor. This is supported by no less than 14 other editors.

I note that you are threatening to take me to ARBCOM over my administerial conduct. You are free to try, but I fear you will be wasting your time as you will not be able to show any abuse of admin tools / powers by myself. The position, as far as I see it, is that we are two editors who have a difference of opinion as to the notability of certain events. It is immaterial that I am an admin, as the vast majority of the time I am not acting in an administrative capacity.

If you feel the my post on Bzuk's talk page was inappropriate, please feel free to raise it at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You already know I think it's appropriate. Don't bother worrying if I'm wasting my time, you just make sure you can justify what you've been doing against WP:ADMIN, and whether or not the line you think exists between editor and admin conduct is so bright or not when it comes to being examined in an arbcom case. Your explanations and excuses might fool people at a partizan and wholly mis-directed and de-railed Rfc, and it might be tempting to think you have support when it comes from a largely non-neutral crowd who have no interest in participating in either Rfcs or Afds properly, but it won't fool arbitrators, who know a poisoned well and an improper agenda when they see one. And if you carry on making canvassing and attacking posts as you wander around in the back streets talking about me, it will be raised at ANI. We'll see if the warning to stop doing it registers with you first, or not, as the case maybe. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I highly suggest you just not show up. The thread established consensus that you were fine extraordinarily quickly, and you have no need to prolong the drama. -- ۩ Mask 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but Mjroots seemed eager for my input befor it could be resolved, so I have already obliged as you were writing this. [20]. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Mick!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243? The frustrating thing, mate, is that you're right! Yes, it's bloody obvious we've got a game of "follow the leader" going on and you're quite correct that drive by "keep per the person before me" are worthless, but people would pay a lot more attention to you if you were just a bit less confrontational about it. I know AfD gets heated, I've been in my fair share of similar situations, but the way you make your point is as important, if not more so, as the point itself. Please, just take a deep breath before replying to people who disagree with you, no matter how idiotic your think their point is. Please? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northumberland Development Project.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Northumberland Development Project.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is awkward

But there seems to be a discussion about you proceeding to unfold on my talkpage. -- ۩ Mask 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More than awkward

You do seem to have a penchant for "the lady doth protest too much" explanations as evidenced by some lengthy answers on my talk page. The reason so many editors, admins alike, have an aversion to your "style" is that you seem to have no social graces whatsoever. Despite the fact that I tend to agree with your arguments, you debase them immediately with your characterizations, which somehow you do not see as incivil. I cannot see how in good conscience that you do not understand that these statements are inflammatory especially when they are not attributed to like responses. What is the point of bashing someone? You take things immediately to the extreme by being constantly on the attack. In the short space of a day, you have called other editors, albeit dressed up with the verbiage that it was their actions: "ignorant", "out of whack", "completely irrelevant", "sub-standard arguments", "parrot like", "lazy", "giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards (sic)," "Fucking 'TLDR'," "pure and utter laziness", "stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for" and "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh."

The last retort made was simply ludicrous: "Now, have your last word," since you never let anything rest and always punctuate any discourse by the tactic of making the last statement. The wikistalking of anyone with an adverse opinion has also got to stop. I asked you once before to confine your comments to your own talk page or to the others', not ancillary editor's talk pages.

As to the inflated opinion you have of your contributions, a cursory examination reveals that you spend nearly all of your time in needless debates rather than doing the real work as you so quaintly put it: "I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia (sic) that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually..." I find your submissions are chock full of errors, exactly the kind that you rail against, evidence of "lazy", "rushed" and "unverified" work. If you wish to continue the discourse about these personal peccadilloes, I would be glad to continue our discourse. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Eh? You generally agree with my opinions? That's news to me tbh. All I know is that your general contribution to ANI and other venues about me is usually very much the sort of inflammatory stuff you accuse me of doing. As for your evidence of incivility from me, it really isn't, and as usual, the 'evidence' offered up is extremely reliant on selective and out of context quotation, and just ignores the what's, why's and wherefore's of the specific exchanges. You've even repeated the 'fucking TLDR' gem as an example of incivility, that was already described as completely innacurate at the last ANI, and a total distortion of the reality of that exchange, in terms of who was being incivil, which was not me.

My critics on the other hand, simply are indisputably incivil, no bells, no whistles, no creative interpretations required. In all cases, all I ever have to do is present the discussion or the timeline in full, and the outcome of independet review re. CIVIL is always the same w.r.t. me. No violation, no action, gtfo. I really don't care if admins don't like my style, it's irrelevant, I'm only interested in whether they see the difference and the hypocrisy at play in those situations, and these tedious complaints.

And if you want me to stay off your page, then make sure you are not allowing it to be used as an attack venue on me. Because it doesn't matter what you request, to reiterate for the second time, watching and responding for that sort of crap is not wikistalking. Never has been, never will be. You want the right to do that, request it at ANI. You will not be successful. I can and I will reply anywhere, on any page, where I am being 'discussed' like that. It's not 'your' page in that regard, not at all.

As for my edit record, not that it's relevant to this issue, but yes, I've recently spent most of my edit time at Afd (and because of these civility 'complaints', at ANI) on this issue, but that would not be necesary if the other side got a clue, and started making good arguments at Afd, or started to address the gaping hole that exists between their claimed consensus, and our policies, guidelies and even their own essay. This is not rocket science, this is how the Wiki get's built, both policy and articles.

My article space contributions more than stand up to scrutiny, I'd be amazed if you could find any article I've written, or rewritten, was lazy or unverified. You can see from BilCat what a mistake it is to even start down that line - he seems incredibly proud of having made 60,000 edits, yet he still has no idea about core things like WP:Afd, WP:N, and yes, even WP:CIVIL. The best he can do as a form of dispute resolution in this issue, is to call me names, and go on and on and on at places like your talk page about how he is giving me enough rope to hang myself. Like I haven't had a million enemies like him make that exact same statement a million times before, and I'm magically still here, and if they are still here, I neither know or care. I think his daft idea that I have admin supporters (in the wrong cabal like way, rather than the policy way) shows what he really knows about me. He's clueless, and tedious, and has no decent idea how to deal with this Afd/content issue. Not one.

In terms of actual writing, simply scanning my contribs list is deceptive, and your check very much was cursory in that regard. I don't waste time recording my acheivements on my user page, just the cursory badge to clue in all but the most inexperience editors before they start templating me. I could not even tell you how many new articles or DYK's I have, but every new article or rewrite/expansion I do, is usually drafted offline, and posted in one edit, and is almost always a DYK straight out of the box. And I certainly have a hatfull of those I think, and a bunch of ITN credits too. I even have one of the page view records on DYKSTATS. I don't do GAR/FAR out of simple choice, not ability, but at least five I would say of my sole creations have been made GAs by others, with the bare minimum of changes. But like I said, in terms of having the high ground or not on what is and is not civil conduct, this is completely irrelevant. I caution you or anyone else from thinking this makes a blind bit of difference, or thinking that I am going to care one bit about this sort of grandstanding.

And personally, I've never had a problem with leaving the last word to someone else, but when I do, it's usually a mark of someone having made a good post that made sense, and didn't need replying to, except to maybe say 'good points well made'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Really?! Your contributions stand up to scrutiny?! I did a check on a meager five submissions to articles and found no reference sources, mistakes in context, syntax and spelling, all symptomatic of your past exclamations of disdain at "lazy" editing. The fact that you may have seen DYKs is more akin to the subject rather than your contribution. Grandstanding: "what gaul," as your real claim to Wiki fame is in confrontations and accusatory dialogue evidenced not only by the examples I cited but also by your own admission to a laudatory "million enemies" (perhaps parse that down a few hundred thousand, LOL). Further playing devil's advocate, as to your perception that you are somehow a gatekeeper, protecting the Wiki wonderland's sanctity by installing discipline regarding guidelines of submissions. Ha! No one editor has that role, neither you nor a bevy of your slack-jawed followers. Now, as to the assertion that I do agree with you, it is all a matter of taste, I might like the stew but not how it is cooked or presented, and your dishing it out is what I object to. You go after all and sundry, whether neophyte or expert with the same bludgeon. How many admins and editors have cautioned that you could catch more flies with honey not vinegar? I have seen numerous attempts to get you to moderate your language. Sorry for writing in a stream of consciousness manner, but I am trying to get my thoughts down on the screen. Whether you believe it or not, I hold no animosity for you, and am not on a personal vendetta, as you have postulated that others are, either in the process of, or are contemplating. I write, for a living, and admire your turn of phrase and use of vocabulary but do not appreciate the way this skill is turned on others. Now that I have enunciated the same tired rephrane, I await your last word.

Let me correct one inaccurate assertion, in that you spend the majority of your time on talk/discussion pages. The result here clearly shows that you have made significant contributions to article space. FWiW, see edit count Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Which five examples? I'm sure you appreciate that you can't really say that without giving diffs. I have enemies, but not ones that deserve my respect, due to the fact they do not respect policy or DR, and instead play silly buggers and attempt to use CIVIL as a weapon, and get jealous and butthurt when that fails. How many of those enemies I accrue, or how many of those are annoyed by me, doesn't bother me one bit. They reap what they sow as far as I'm concerned, and this is the same view that a good many seriously good contributors here hold. I dispute that I take a broad brush approach, or deploy an indiscriminate bludgeon. I am very careful at Afd to make my responses proportionate, on point, and relevant, to what the specific person has actualy said. An opposing comment that makes a point or a counter-argument in the right way, is worth a thousand pointless attacks and non-policy arguments. I can and do work reasonably with the former, but I do not shirk from being robust with the latter. But I do neither in an incivil way. I'm not sure which experts you refer to, but if it's aviation accident experts, even they are expected to read and follow WP:Afd#How to discuss an Afd at Wikipedia just like anybody else, and not just give an argument through assertion, or any other WP:ATA. And yes, the community is the guardian of policy - the whole community, not just those members who have rather naively in the past at Afd loudly and repeatedly exclaimed that I am a disruptive editor, that I don't understand consensus/policy in this topic area, that all these articles are simply of obvious worth to the pedia, or any other excuse that has been offered up for making exceptions to EVENT etc, and that I should effectively just shut stfu and stop making all these "ridiculous" Afds. The Windjet outcome put paid to that theory, once the wider community got involved. Because it is the wider community that wrote EVENT, GNG, NOT, and everything else. MickMacNee (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Any five examples!! I am loathe to find anything other than minor tinkering in article space, correcting spelling, expanding statements and the like. How about you propose an example of the exemplar of your writing because, seriously, as an editor, I would savage your work, as sloppy and here's that word again, "lazy." The assertion that you tailor your responses may have some merit, as your commentary on this "string" clearly indicates that you do have some deliberative thought behind your statements, but whether that is the way you constantly approach others is not borne out by the exchange that I noted between yourself and an admin. You used all of the declarations in the aforementioned first passage above against this one individual. Is that considered proportion or reasonable behaviour? Your use of incendiary descriptors like "butthurt" is not becoming nor necessary. You state emphatically that you are "robust" but your actions belie that, and numerous confrontational incidents have been recorded. I have to break for now as I am the campaign manager for my wife's re-election (campaign manager, euphemistically stated, as most campaign managers don't marry into the process) and she has just called me off to work. FWiW, I'll get back to you with more of your transgressions when I am off the hustings. Bzuk (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Current events template

Can we talk about this instead of reverting each other? I'm inclined to bring up a discussion on the template's talk page tomorrow since I want to hear the voices of others. Personally, I don't agree with untagging things that are clearly happening as a non-current event. I also believe that anything "In the News" should also be tagged by default. I'm interested in hearing what you say before I proceed. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what there is to discuss. The template documentation is crystal clear. Despite the unfortunate name, no, it is not a flag to simply identify articles that are about current events. We have hundreds of such articles every day. MickMacNee (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have monitored this category in the past. There has never been hundreds a day. Five is a better number. I'm going to bring up the discussion there and you're more than welcome to comment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BI-Taskforce & BISE

Please, start a RFC. I don't mind being scrutinized, labotamized, amplified, terrorized etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention the t word for god's sake. Sarah will be here like a shot. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, ahhhhhh. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading straight into blockable territory here, Mick...

Might I suggest that any further comments in that thread not insult Snowded's (or anyone else's, naturally) intelligence, ditto ditto etc etc? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I insulted his intelligence, just the people who might be buying what he keeps saying about what has and hasn't happened in the last years in that dispute, or who is and isn't the problem. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Its the inimitable Mick Sarek, I've been around these pages long enough to know he ain't likely to change the style and is happy to take the odd block in consequence. I gave up being worried by the polemic years ago (Oh my God it is that long) --Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

When you're saying someone has to be stupid to believe what someone else says, you may not be saying they're stupid, but it's definitely uncomplimentary/uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melniboné

Hi Mick,

I don't really understand the rationale given in your nomination of the Melniboné article. It'd be helpful if you could elaborate further [[on the discussion page. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I was raised in Ireland you see, and my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards. So, whenever I see an article that uses the phrase 'British Isles', I feel compelled to delete it. I hope you understand. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Closing this discussion, and you can probably expect some repercussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nemesis

I'm trying to understand your edit [21]. I try to follow MOSDAB, so I'm interested in meaning behind your edit comment, especially as you seem to redo some of the edits?!. Confused. Widefox (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagreed with most of your edits, so I reverted them all. I'm happy to discuss each one here if you like, or on the talk page. MickMacNee (talk)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it, had to go out before I had time to notify. Thanks Stickee. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  RGTraynor  18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per this ANI discussion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, see my comments in the AN/I thread to explain why I support this block. And further, I agree that an unblock should not occur unless editing restrictions are developed and agreed upon by you. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{ The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock. Please review WP:GAB before filing any further unblock requests. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Conceded that the timing issue may be seen as causing some concern, nevertheless there seems to be a consensus in the WP:ANI thread in support of the sanction imposed. I count five in support, one against, and three comments which did not come down clearly on either side. I am personally sitting on the fence, but feel that the thread should be correctly interpreted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct interpretation would require taking into account facts such as 'supporters' like User:Mo ainm recently whitewashed his account history to hide the fact he was racking up blocks, including in the BISE topic area, which he still edits in now, with no traceable link to his prior account, and as we see here, the with presumably no fear of an ambush from Sandstein like this. Or the fact that Bjmullan, he who says "MickMacNee has shown nothing but contempt for the whole concept of civility" (proof? unsubstantiated smear = inCIVIL behaviour remember?), can make this sort of comment in an article talk page (infact, the Ireland talk page of all places): "For what it's worth competing in the I was raped and pillaged by the British games doesn't count as recondition (sic) of anything" [22]. Still, there's the issue. For admins to seemingly do anything about any of this sort of gaming or POV pushing, in the face of no easy 'he called me a twat' blocks, or, 'block him, he's awfully mean to me, and all I've ever done for years is to be an SPA for the continual systematic erasure of a term from the pedia without ever making that a guideline, despite making the same argument again and again and never listening to anyone else, but I'm awfully carefull to be polite about it), they need Rfc's in triplicate, executed by an aggrieved party who has the temperament and patience of a robot. To community ban me however, all Sandstein apparently needs is to be able to lazily point to a 'long' block log, and have a post-indef block party (which he absents himself from), where everybody is invited except me, even though as said, this block prevents nothing in terms of active disruption and is pretty illegitimate in terms of DR. And presumably if during that time of enforced humiliation, if I blow my stack and say lots of naughty words, all the better for them I guess. Provocation, even from admins, being just like civil POV pushing - invisible to others as an offence worthy of ever recognising as inCIVILity. Note that none of this forms any part of my unblock appeal mind, before anyone chucks in the usual NOTTHEM get out card, I am just showing how such an ambush indef can become completely one sided after the event, and any such 'consensus' after the event will never be truly objective or even honest, and will do nothing except give an editor like me all the wrong ideas about what he should and should not be doing, if he ever gets back to editting. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read it all as you know, but spotted my username and that I edit in BISE area not true I'm afraid, I stay away from any where you are going to show up. Just making sure you are aware of the mistake you have made and check back at ANI what Alison said when you tried to bring this up before about I can't be arsed to look but something to do with WP:OUTING as far as I can remember, don't want to go down that road also do you? Mo ainm~Talk 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy for everyone to find out how you only came to realise that the reason you didn't want your old account name revealed was after Alison said it would be outing, even though it would be as much 'outing' as if I had rinsed my account like you, and someone later called me 'Mick'. I even think in that thread you nearly stated what your real reason was, until you realised that by returning to old ground meant is was a basic policy violation, and swiftly back peddled. I think you even came up with a third excuse even before the post-script outing excuse came up. It was BS then, and it's BS now, as is your ridiculous claim that you do not actively participate and influence what goes in this whole dispute area. If you want to email any current admin watching here with your old retired account name, and detail exactly what these 'outing' concerns were, so that they may independently verify your various claims and examine your current account's edit record in all areas, then go right ahead. I don't think it's going to happen tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that "The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock." is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original charges, which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the Power Snooker article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually can do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with all pertinent lessons learned, trust me. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, you do not get to choose who responds to your unblock requests - the original block was made based on clear direction from the ANI discussion. Frankness is not bad, but WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DICK are not sets of recommended behaviours. Neither is WP:SPIDERMAN. Here is my honest recommendation: right below this unblock, start drafting a list of possible restrictions that could be imposed on you in order to allow an unblock. Your list will clearly show whether or not you actually get why you're blocked. Below that, admins can suggets others. After that, we'll put it together and see how that works. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is getting more and more ridiculous. There was no support for a community ban in that thread before Sandstein got involved. The only issue being raised by people before he got involved was a POINT violation, which came from my frustration at how concerted civil POV pushing at the BISE topic is being adminned, or not as the case maybe, and how nobody at that ANI thread was in the slightest bit interested in even acknowledging anything except basic and obvious civility catches like Triton. But Sandstein rejects a topic ban from BISE as a solution, so that's out. As for the suggestion that I don't know why I'm blocked, or I just need to realise what I can do about it, I have to burst this bubble I'm afraid. When Sandstein decided to get involved, he made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me at least, that he does not believe I can do anything about the reason for my block, which was clearly and simply put as my block log length, and my inherent personality flaws. He believes I will always disrupt, always, always, (eventualy, he has to stretch that characterisation over several years mind, and several different kinds of disruption, and somehow his lack of being able to put a concrete finger on what 'it' is, such as by pointing to an Rfc, is somehow an issue for me, not him?), and he has thus swooped in well after the event, and blocked me indefinitely as a protection of the pedia. I can't change my block log (infact, I am clearly being punished for not being smart enough to not practice account hopping/whitewashing), and while I can promise to moderate my personality, I don't how I can put that into a proposed editting restriction to anybody's satisfaction. You either believe me or you don't on that score. Sandstein doesn't. I can promise to follow policy, but again, I don't see how that translates to a restriction. Sandstein clearly wanted a ban discussion, without having to have a ban discussion. He sort of got it, but even after he blocked me, there are clear dissenting voices both to the logic of his indef block given his statements, and exactly how disruptive I really am (and it is also clouded by having unidentified clear biased opinions in there who can barely conceal their joy, while not revealing that they are not exactly independent reviewers and have a vested interest in such a block-which-is-a-ban development). He is not interested in the slightest though. He is now trying to pass this off onto other admins now, and rather insultingly, is comparing an indef ban on me, a long term proven good contributor, to that which you slap on a basic, flat out first 100 edits disruptor/vandal[23], as if the cases, and the exit options, are remotely the same. This is all in the environment that I am incivil? Sorry, but no, this is just baiting. But I'm not biting, yet. Sandstein is for some reason, leaving it to other admins to have the 'community discussion' he originally referred to, about what I or the community should do before I can be un-blocked, but why is it down to them to figure out what to propose that will satisfy him? Unless or until this issue is sorted, unless or until he either phrases this as a non-fait accompli indef block, which he isn't exactly busting a gut to follow though, or as a properly proposed community ban, to see if the community shares his low low opinion of me, then you are going to have to believe when I say I don't have a fucking clue what you want from me with regard to suggested restriction proposals, and this whole exercise still looks for all the world like a ban discussion, which lasted eight hours and got one person's comment before it was actually enacted. Call this SPIDER or whatever, I call it being ignored after the event, when I can do nothing about it, and whereby, seemingly now if no admin comes along to make any suggestion whatsoever, and Sandstein certainly won't, then I'm defacto banned. All this in an editing environment where even BetaCommand is getting away with still violating actual proper written down and clear community sanctions that he was under, after not only Rfcs but even two arbitration cases, and still only getting a three week block!. And this indef-block is about simply preventing certain disruption based on nothing but me having been blocked a few times over years? No Rfc, no other discussion, no nothing. Come on, there is much more going on here, there is a definite malice, maliciousness and injustice to this whole sequence of events, and in particular to Sandstein's whole approach to me, personally. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You've written a lot about this block now, but not one word about whether your own conduct might possibly have something to do with this block. This is not going in the right direction.

The reason for this block is not your block log, but your disruption and your reaction to the reaction to said disruption. Now, you have two ways to be unblocked.

• The first is to convince me that you will not disrupt Wikipedia again. For the reasons mentioned in the ANI thread (notably your block log), this will be very, very, very difficult.
• The second is to agree to a set of restrictions that will prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia again as effectively as this block does. I can't think of any such restrictions right now, but maybe you can. I advise you, therefore, to go ahead with Bwilkins's suggestion.  Sandstein  21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I think point 1. puts to bed whether you are trying to indef block me to prevent disruption, or trying to ban me with no community consensus whatsoever, except the laughing hyenas who turn up after the fact and like to omit crucial facts in their 'support' opinions. As for point 2, well thanks to you, it is apparently now just all down to me and the admins who you clearly think are your inferiors, who exist solely to sort out your blocks, to sort something out with me, after the event, even though you have given fuck all evidence to support your claims at all that I should be banned, bar a nice little wave to my block log and a wink, or a threat maybe. I wonder if any admin has the balls to challenge you as the AE enforcer in such an abuse. We'll see. You know less than fuck all about most of those block situations, because unsurprisingly, you don't involve yourself in them at all. Things like who/what/why w.r.t civil POV pushing in the BI situation are completely alien to you, except you just recognise my name right. Yeah. Just g.t.f.o. my talk page already Sandstein. If I'm getting fucked here, I want you nowhere near it any more. Any admin who wants to unblock me with conditions, can discuss it with you on your talk page to get the permission you will so hypocritically require no doubt, if they choose to give you that respect at all. Their choice. Not that you think that is a likely scenario, instead of nobody giving a fuck or just being happy with the outcome. So well done. Good game, good game. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I've stayed out of this thus far apart from one or two comments on ANI. I'm willing to help you, but you've got to help yourself. Start thinking of a few restrictions you could deal with. It would be a hell of a lot more productive than trying to provoke admins. You're smart enough to realise that half the people who see the above are only going to see the wall of text and the "naughty words". Basically, give us a reason to think that you wouldn't cause disruption (regardless of everything else, that AfD was more than a little pointy) if you were unblocked. Proposing restrictions would be a good step in that direction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple. I am not a moron. Had I for one minute believed that Sandstein's ambush ban-by-block ploy would remotely stand, I would never have made that pointy nomination, which I extremely hesitate to say, was made in no small part due to me being totally fucking drunk at the time. But that's no excuse, the underlying reason behind it stands - if no admin is prepared to even give lip service to the abuse that is civil POV pushing, or TE, in that area, then I am afraid Sandstein is going to have to block good contributors all the time, due to the blatant gaming that occurs there. Quite where this guy Cailill came from I don't know. I've never seen his name before in my life, and quite what his qualification for knowing who is BATTLEing or not in that area escapes me. His being Irish does not, no matter what threats he makes to people for pointing that out. Not that Sandstein gives a flying fuck who he blocks in any area, given his comparison of me to that vandal you recently dealt with. Anyone going to block him for inCIVILity for that? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In case you did not notice, I'm attempting to help you become unblocked below. My own doing - you're generally a proficient editor, and I - with no prompting from others - am trying to work with you to be unblocked in a way that helps you and the project. If you choose not to participate, feel free to mope and whine that you don't get a fair shake instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I second BW here. Whatever you may think of the block, the way to get it lifted is to make the effort to work with us and agree to some restrictions. Perhaps that should have been done in an RfC/U prior to any block or ban, but that's where we are right now and the way forward is to play the game. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was uncooperative? I can listen to constructive feedback just like anybody else, I can take on board any independent suggestions if they come with good faith. That's right Sandstein, I have nothing but time, co-operation and perfect patience for any admin who is here legitimately, even better if they have an Rfc or other DR on their side. But any admin seeking my unilateral ban from the community without a ban discussion can go fuck themselves, I will see them in hell, and before that, before an arbcom appeal committee, whether they feel they have special status or not. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible editing restrictions in case of unblock

As suggested by admins

• Topic ban from BISE topics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would be needed as a minimum, but from looking at the block log there seem to be problems with UK/Ireland issues generally, so I would suggest a general topic ban from anything broadly related to UK-Ireland relations, to include notably all British Isles terminology issues. But that does not yet cover the whole uncollaborative attitude/incivility/harrassment problem that has frequently led to blocks. We would need an effective, easily enforceable restriction for that too, but I can't think of any. Clearly we can't just rely on a promise to be polite and friendly.  Sandstein  21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've already said this at ANI - Editing restriction at xfD and DRV - One challenge allowed per editor per discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Your ideas about how Afd is supposed to work are total nonsense. If you want to change the way Afds are executed, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. If you want to get me perma-banned for telling you shit you don't like, but can't prove in any way is a violation of any policy, then stick around, it's a common theme here today. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  The problem is that when you try to answer every single comment at an AfD is it inevitably looks like badgering regardless of how correct you are in regards to policy. When you chuck in a bit of mild swearing the closing admin is just going to facepalm and ignore your arguments. Having said that, we can't reform AfD to stop people arguing and personally the BISE topic ban mentioned above is enough for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  As I said at my RFC, I fully accept you have a right to challenge responses af AfD etc, as does any other editor. As you have been told by more than one editor, the continual challenging of reply, and reply to challenge, and reply to reply to challenge is where this becomes excessive. What I have proposed does not remove your right to challenge responses at AfD or DRV, nor does it prevent you from nominating articles at AfD or DRV. I don't feel that this is unreasonable. I'd even be willing to allow you to make an appeal after a period of time, say 6 months or so. If consensus then exists, the restriction can be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  If you'd read my comments at ANI, I actually argued against this block becoming a de facto ban. I don't like to see any editor blocked, or banned where that is avoidable. At the moment, I support your block, but am not totally opposed to it ever being lifted. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, MJ, there is nothing in any policy about this. Your personal preference may be not to get into extended dialogue, but, as has been said before, you don't have to reply. I don't think it's reasonable to impose your preference on an editor when it's not supported by any of the relevant policies or guidelines. Iff those replies conform to CIV and NPA, then Mick or any other editor is perfectly within their rights to make so many replies they give the closer a repetitive strain injury. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protected

After this edit summary [24], it is not unreasonable to presume that the discussion is pointless. The user is uninterested in working things through with the community, and should be considered community banned. Appeals go to arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. --Scott Mac 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access has since been restored and this talk page has been unprotected. HeyMid (contributions) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, fancy an offline discussion with an admin who doesn't stalk AN/I etc? Happy to talk if you wish, either here or via email. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can talk here if you want, but really, what's the point? Look at that ban-discussion-that-isn't-a-ban-discussion. If the community is happy with this being how community bans are handled, that's fine. I won't bore them with my side of the story behind the opinions of editors like Merridew or Wikireader41 (who even went to helpfully let Mjroots know [25] he should probably scoot over here and suggest the above nonsense about how I should follow his made-up fantasy land interpretations of WP:AFD before I should be unblocked.) And he's an admin FFS. Frankly, most of the people 'endorsing' this ban-which-isn't-a-ban snigger snigger, have back stories with me just like that, where I have disagreed with their ideas about policy, and they respond by claiming that this is inCIVIL behaviour. Someone somewhere said it best, CIVIL is not there to stop people from telling you things you don't want to hear. (Take a look at this Afd for just exactly what editors like Wikireader actually thinks is CIVIL behaviour and what sort of approach he uses which he thinks is perfectly CIVIL, let alone what he thinks passes for clueful policy argumentation). The rest are doing what Sandstein did, giving a little wave to my block log and pretending that there is a rule anywhere that says editors are supposed to be punished for being so stupid as to not keep whitewashing accounts. I will say again, if any one of those editors wants to point to any step of DR that has been followed in this case to actually support such a 'long block log' hatchet job ban-that-is-a-block like this, then go right ahead, to properly support some of the frankly wild claims about my behaviour and threat to the project, and how much better off the project will be without me. Opinion's like Cailil's are priceless, he even freely admits he never had anything to do with me until that last ANI, yet form somewhere he has magically shown evidence of behaviour sufficient to warrant this sort of obscure back channel stitch up. Yet for him to even begin to investigate an accusation of GAME behaviour in the BI area, he want's RFCs in triplicate, presumably then assessed by neutral observers. It's hypocritical bull. There are some cluefull opinions out there and I'm thankful for them being given, generally from people who spend more than five minutes investigating issues, or who can claim that they know my history well enough to give an accurate, neutral opinion on this block, as well as some downright fucked up and vengeful ones (the attempt to ban me from my own talk page for example for removing a troll who is again, just someone who thinks it was incivil to disagree with them at Afd - I was never the type of editor to whine about this sort of rant, or even complain to ANI about Mjroot's pretty obvious light touch and partisan treatment of such violators, being on his side of the dispute, but in light of who it was, that now that seems very foolish given what role they are now having in my demise, with Mjroots amusingly thinking this block was "Excellent". No such luck in that dispute for me...), but given the way Sandstein has gone about this, the cluefull inputs can easily be ignored in the round, especially now the old sub-page side-step has occured, unless another admin wishes to risk him taking them to arbitration if he and all the other party boys just want to ignore them. No, I don't see any way out of this for me now. I am supposed to be thinking of editting restrictions for myself, but seriously, when the charge isn't any more substantiated than 'you have a long block log', or 'he always violates NPA, just trust me' (obv. from people who have never read the last god knows how many WQA/ANI reports on me that were kicked out without so much as a warning, generally due to the fact that editors like Sven Manguard really really have no idea what the actual community view of CIVIL actually is), then what's the point? Nobody has any suggestions, because the charges are ridiculously vague. And that was intentional I'm sure, because more often than not, it's been Sandstein insiting I've done something wrong in many of those threads, and then ending up in the minority concensus on that score. So he's taken his opportunity now in a way that he can be farely confident his late, unilateral and opportunistic action won't be challenged. C'est la vie. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have not posted here before because I thought Mcnee would say I was trolling him, and it is true (and I'm sure he will agree) we cordially dislike each other. However, I really don't see that prolonging this ban is beneficial to the project and if something is not of benefit to the project, then it serves no purpose and is unjustifiable. No one is looking good here. McNee is very acerbic, blunt and rude, but so I am told are many other people - it's hardly grounds for dispensing with their services - it's apparent that he has been trolled and forced into a corner and there does not seem a way for him to get himself out of it without eating huge quantities of humble pie and grovelling, which of course is not something he is going to do (much as I suspect some want to see him humbled and brought to heel) and I don't blame him. Whatever Mcnee says, it's pretty obvious that he's going to think twice before employing his tongue before his brain in future - Those that want rid of him are actually looking a little spiteful and vengeful right at this moment, they need to discover that revenge is a dish best served cold. Fighting a man backed into a corner with his hands tied never makes anyone look good. So I suggest they free him and see what happens over the next few weeks.  Giacomo  23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Further fragmented discussion here [26].  Giacomo  07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not think that anyone wants this to become a ban. This is a block, and I can't say how many people have suggested that Mick take part in drafting some acceptable restrictions so that he can be unblocked. Becoming a martyr is not helping the project - becoming unblocked with restrictions is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• From what I have seen people do indeed seem to want a ban (or at best not care if the "block" isn't ever lifted) and furthermore they are too wary of trying to prove him guilty in a fair and satisfactory hearing. Screaming and heckling on ANI by a whipped up and assembled throng is not justice in any meaningful of fair sense of the word. It's the beahavior of those better suited to a tinpot banana republic, not an assembly of suposedly educated people.  Giacomo  12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Mick, I'm hoping your indef-block will be lifted. In the meantime, I'd recommend avoid using colourful language, as it tends to heighten tension among others. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Power Snooker logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Power Snooker logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the logo to the relevant article, per your rationale, and removed the orphaned notice. Bovlb (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

a question of rope

You don't like me. So, I realise posting here might be considered baiting or trolling. If that's the case, remove this and call me what you will, and I'll not trouble you again. However, sometimes only Nixon can come to China (which of us is Nixon and which is China, I'll leave aside), so I'd like to make you an offer. I've not looked at the circumstances of your block, and I'm quite open to the possibility it may be harsh or unfair. It's quite easy to take you the wrong way (Indeed, it took me while to realise that, despite the expletives, this is constructive "fair comment", and actually quite funny) and perhaps that's what happened here.

Given doubts over the block, I am somewhat tempted to unblock you. (I lack consensus to do that but, as you know, that seldom constrains my use of abusive admin power!). My problem is that, if I'm honest, my initial reaction to your indef block (and I expect the reaction of many others) was "well, he had that coming". People are of the opinion that you and wikipedia were bound to part company eventually. Now, that may well be not entirely your fault. It may be because Wikipedia is shit and can't handle people like you. But the problem that it gives me is that if I unblock you, it may well be in the expectation that it won't matter because you'll just get banned over something else. So, my unblock becomes a trolling designed to give you enough rope to hang yourself. And then we can all say "ah, well, that was inevitable wasn't it", and feel smug and superior again.

So, let me ask right now. Would it be trolling you if I were to unblock you? Is there any way you could work with the shit that Wikipedia is in a manner that the bastards won't just reblock you for a better reason next week?--Scott Mac 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott, if you and Mick can work something out here, I'd support an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no issue with you unblocking me on the basis that you probably expect another to follow in short order. I certainly wouldn't see it as trolling, others might like to think that I'm just that stupid, but I'm really not. You will have a problem with Sansdtein if you do though, but seeing as it seems both of you would be discussing that with no specific knowledge of my current threat to the pedia, other than vague ideas that I had it coming and the length of my block log, I can't see that ending in anything other than a personal opinion deadlock. Sandstein then taking you to arbitration might be the outcome, and I'll do my best to give a neutral account from my perspective. Any admin who blocks me in future will be subject to the same expectations that Sandstein has failed to meet. If they come here claiming to prevent immediate disruption, they shouldn't be doing so nearly a day later. If they come here claiming to be preventing certain disruption in future, they had better have some specific evidence better than their own unilateral opinions, and a post-block party where inevitably the only people who turn up are my best buddies from past disputes, happy that they finally get satisfaction for the numerous disputes they've lost with me in the past. (If you want to assess my actual threat level as the neutral community really sees it, then you could check the last few ANI/WQA reports on me, and see if they actually ended with any kind of sanction against me from which this sort of ban would be the only next option.) I've already pointed out the complete lack of any actual DR evidence given in this case. If they come here with the intention of indef blocking me until I 'get it' or agree to some sanctions, then again, they had better come here with something more substantial for me to work with in terms of actual DR, and unlike Sandstein, actually state that they even believe that would be possible. And if, like Sandstein, they come here just to block me with the full intention of it being the enacting of a community ban, well, I think all decent admins know what procedure has to come before they can ever get away with pulling that sort of manouvre. A lot of people might believe in their very soul that the community benefits from me being kicked out whatever the specifics, but I am part of that community too, with a shit load of productive edits behind me. Just because I don't myspace up my user page to celebrate them, does not mean I don't have the same rights as any other established editor here in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't want to unblock you if it is just going to be a temporary reprieve (causing drama with those who object to me doing it - and me being arbcommed), followed by some incident and associated drama, followed by you being banned again. If that's the future then, regardless of whether you are in the right or not, all my action will have caused is disruption (although I'm not afraid of being arbcommed). You response seems to be "well this block is wrong, and so the next person better get it right". My question is, if I unblock you, will you do your bit to making sure no one has any grounds to block you next time? I'm not so much looking for agreed topic bans or any such legalistic nonsense, as an indication that you can see why it looks so inevitable that you'll end up banned, and do your damnedest to take evasive action. Not editing drunk might be a start (although I can't talk there). I not asking you to admit you've been wrong (that's asking too much from any Wikipedian) or to beg, I'm just asking: "given how Wikipedia is, and how seemingly arbitrary people can be, do you think there's any chance that you can find a way of working that doesn't end up with a community endorsed ban?". If you're up for trying, I am.--Scott Mac 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I too support this proposal. If there is anything I can do to help you get unblocked, don't hesitate to message or email me. --John (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Scott, if I gave the impression that I think the next block is inevitable, and that my only concern is whether it is done right or not, rather than not drawing it at all, that was wrong - I really don't think that way at all. And yes, after this block I am well aware of the practical differences between what can happen and what should happen, so in my own interests, I am obviously going to try and make sure I cannot be put in this situation again. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. I trust you won't make me look a fool.--Scott Mac 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter is now on ANI. Please help me by thinking very carefully should you chose to comment on what will inevitably happen now.--Scott Mac 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lorry falls on train

Mick, would you consider that the unusual circumstances of this accident would justify a stand-alone article or not. It's mentioned under the list of rail accidents covering 2010, and at Oxshott railway station. Asking first to avoid drama later. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone will consider that a historically notable incident. Maybe if there was some fault of NR/Highways that caused the truck to fall, but that report didn't suggest that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, at the moment, I don't feel that strongly over the incident. Maybe further details will emerge which will change things, maybe not. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but I had similar thoughts myself. I'd give it a few weeks and see if it's still in the headlines as the investigation progresses then consider whether there's enough to justify an article. Btw, good to have you back, Mick. Try to keep out of trouble! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Further details have emerged, the train sustained more damage than was originally apparent, with all four vehicles of one unit suffering severe damage, as well as one other vehicle suffering some damage. Therefore, I've raised the issue of creation of the article at WT:UKRAIL, where you are welcome to give your views. I will not create an article on the accident unless there is clear consensus that it should be created. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents

The current WP:AIRCRASH guideline never really had a consensus and it does not appear to reflect some of the discussions at articles for deletion. We need to change the emphasis that it must meet the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and that it should only be a guide and not a scorecard to take to AfD. I have proposed a simpler guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability and tried to capture the trend from the AfDs. With your experience at AfDs your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

MMN, I am not sure if you are aware; but a discussion has already started at WP:ANI featuring you... L.tak (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you should have been were notified by RG Traynor.
Difficult as it may be, I think sometimes it's best to nominate and then leave alone. I don't think either of you are doing yourselves or your point of view any favours in that AfD. pablo 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)amended  pablo 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems I got about five notifications in all. Cheers one and all. MickMacNee (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding your AFD philosophy

I would like to understand your need to respond to many of the evaluations people make who are generally opposed to you in AfD. I observe that you feel the need to give meta-instructions regarding various wikipedia policies to the closing admin. I understand that many visitors to the AfD pages do not know how to express their thoughts about the article, however sometimes a well written justification is all that needs to be said unless you would have subsequent editors re-hashing the same handful of justifications over and over. I also observe that you do not inquire to the same degree of thoroughness the editors that do tend to agree with your viewpoint.

It has been my impression that administrators are fairly well versed in wikipedia policy and can make assessments by themselves regarding the community consensus and the various wikipedia policies that are applicable in deletion discussions. In short, I would like to understand your philosophy so that I may attempt to reduce some of the challanges regarding your deletions. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is your experience at Afd sounds different to mine. I have seen far too many one word admin closures where it was pretty obvious they have done nothing more intelligent than a simple vote-count. And DRV is little more than a joe for fixing that, so all the more need to make absolutely sure up front that everybody is on the same page with regards to the actual issues. A little reminder here and there is required, and despite what a lot of people claim, not in the least bit disallowed. These reminders are necessary for both the close, aswell as the voters, who 9 times out of 10 are actually experience enough to know precisely when they are making a crap argument or not, and still do so anyway, because they know they can get away with it more often than not. MickMacNee (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Sandstein  16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton

Howdy Micky. Why'd ya wanna keep that article, when we've already got Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't have an Afd on one of two content splits, the Afd is clearly about the topic. It's moot now anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hair puller. Let's list all the commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with that. Just not in the first line. MickMacNee (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would make the article top-loaded. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Oh sure, pick on the BISE again. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's ripe for it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice, as required

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish football referee strike

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The first AfD nomination of Emirates Flight 407

Hi Mick. I don't know if you noticed this or not, but I actually withdrew my own nomination of that article, as I saw mixed opinions as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. The ones that opposed referred to the essay WP:AIRCRASH. However, I don't think you should judge closures as "inappropriate". HeyMid (contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You cannot withdraw your own nomination if valid keeps and deletes were registered. Even if someone refers to an essay, it is still a valid vote in that regard. This is not a case of me judging it, this is standard Afd procedure, as explained in WP:NAC. Even though you 'withdrew' it, you have effectively called the consensus on the Afd debate you yourself started. That's wrong whichever way you look at it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it would've probably been different if I had withdrawn my nomination if there hadn't been any votes at all, but I understand your explanation. HeyMid (contribs) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Hospital

Thanks, this was something that we seemed to have missed. Much appreciated! Ng.j (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).

Cheers. I was quite amazed when I found it was a red link. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MILITARY PEOPLE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MILITARY PEOPLE. Since you had some involvement with the MILITARY PEOPLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off for deletion

The article France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 82.23.146.131 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, Mick! I'm sure we might remember each other from some encounters in the "BISE" affair: but I need to let you know that I brought your name up in an issue you have previously been involved with[27]. I'd appreciate any comments you could give there if you're interested, as well. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

The deletion review for FedEx Express Flight 647 was closed before I got to finish asking you my question: Why didn't you bring this up with Cirt (talk · contribs) before taking it to deletion review and questioning his judgment? Would you have rather it be closed as No Consensus, because either way, it was not getting deleted. I still don't fully get why you brought it to DRV either. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:RECENTISM. Nominees can have information covered in their own articles if particularly relevent. Currently this is just a list of nominees. The actual relevant information (first, second and third places will be announced) will go in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award for deletion

The article 2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _wjemather^bigissue 09:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Transportation requests for deletion review

1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 13
3. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2
4. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17
5. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 16

MickMacNee, I have noticed a pattern with the above DRVs. There are several transportation-incidents-related deletion discussions, which you brought to DRV, all of which resulted in an "endorse" of the original deletion discussion's closure. The subsequent DRVs have all turned out the same, and consensus was in most cases pretty strongly in favor of "endorse". With these results in mind, bringing these matters to DRV seems like a waste of the community's time. Perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, and allow for the possibility that other editors might step in, instead, to take a look at these issues? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no pattern there at all, except in the last three. You are right that DRV is a waste of time in that respect, where I should have gone is ANI, or raise an Rfc on whether you are doing a good enough job in properly explaining to the entire community (which includes dissenters) how you come to your decisions in closing Afd's with respect to the actual points made, or worse, whether you are even reading those debates in detail at all, for what is clearly a disputed field. Frankly, what is a waste of the community's time is if the only people in it who can agree with your vague and non-specific closures, are shock horror, the group who really love the articles, and really hate the policies and guidelines that plenty of people think suggest they should not exist, and who you declared the 'winners'. That is not consensus - see WP:WFTE. If you want to carry on claiming there is a "strong consensus" to be found in these Afd's/DRV's, rather than following up your own suggestion and allowing other admins to close them, then you had better start realising that that is a pretty strong assertion that one side of a debate is talking absolute shite. Strong claims or judgements like that require strong evidence, or at least the presence of multiple admins coming to the same conclusion - you closing them on your own, and then pointing to dumb vote counts and the expression of ignorant mob rule in flagrant ignorance of policies and factual, evidence backed arguments, is not that evidence in the slightest - see WP:CON. I will ask you one last time to satisfy my doubts if you are getting this or not: in that last AFD, which specific arguments did you weigh positively and negatively, and which did you discount, per the Afd closing instructions and with respect to the facts/policies presented, on the point that the article even existing violates the nominator's argument that 'Wikipedia is not a list of hull losses' (WP:NOT#INFO). If you continue to absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that is a valid question for someone to ask you, as the closing admin, then I don't think I am going to take up your suggestion in future, and I'll remind you that if you want to take it further and make it a more formal instruction, that you are INVOLVED in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I find it disturbing and unfortunate that you would try to twist this into an attack on a single administrator, when I have not closed the majority of the DRVs or AFDs cited above. In fact, other admins have also closed multiple deletion discussions you have been involved in on this topic, with similar resultant outcomes. Unfortunately, this appears to be an issue of WP:HEAR, for you, on this topic, and on multiple different deletion discussions. I hope that you reconsider. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You closed 3 out of 3 of the relevant Afd's listed above, that's a 100% majority to me. That is even a 60% majority if including the irrelevant ones you also mentioned. The only lack of hearing here is coming from you, with your by now familiar ability to ignore 90% of what people say to you, the above post and reply combo being one of a long line of examples of that in my experience with you. You're an admin, you know that this is not an acceptable way to communicate, especially if you are making allegations, so if you are not going to read and respond to the entirety of my posts going forward, then don't waste my time by posting here at all. You can do whatever you want to do to further this issue you think exists here, just make sure that you really have the independent, community view, of what's what and who's who. The flaws of DRV as that mechanism appear to be lost on you, and I've just discovered, although I really shouldn't have been surprised, that there is someone not-so-neutral or cluefull feeding you some pretty poor information about what I supposedly do and don't do, and how much support I do and don't have in this content dispute, whether that is measured in dumb vote counting, or cluefull and considered opinion. I suggest you not make the same mistakes he has done for months, in knowing what is and is not proper admin conduct in a dispute, content or otherwise. So, with that, that's end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, if you intend on again making a reply that ignores 90% of what I say, or in any way gives me the impression that you think that I, as a three year plus Wikipedia veteran, really am some sort of fucking idiot, as your citing of HEAR suggested to me. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:HEAR issue was brought up, to me, by other users, including Sandstein (talk · contribs), diff and Heymid (talk · contribs) diff. -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Sandstein is the guy who recently tried to act as judge, jury and executioner with an attempted community ban on me without the discussion phase, who then took the huff when it was overturned as a kind of super-admin posturing, and his subsequent request for arbitration was rightly thrown out for having nothing behind it in terms of the required evidence of prior dispute resolution except a few diffs of unsubstantiated rabble rousing at ANI, and then belatedly, a wish to cite my legitimate but utlimately pointless attempt to to stop the supposed admin who is trying to use you as a proxy in this dispute, as somehow being evidence against me. So no, I hope you can see why his opinion on what I do or don't do is worth less than nothing to me, even if it is to you. As for Heymid, I've no idea what he based that on, but I think he has been involved in these Afd's at some point. Without specific diffs to back it up, I unlike others you are hearing from, am not willing to say anything further as to whether he is neutral and uninvolved, or not. And he's not an admin either, although thanks to the guy feeding you info, I'm not sure if that is relevant anymore in terms of how much weight you or others should give their opinion on another user. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you will not reconsider, but I thank you for your, um, candor. I hope you are well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have to agree with Cirt (talk · contribs) here. None of the AFD's showed a strong community consensus to delete, so bringing them to DRV does nothing besides kill time. I still doing understand why you are doing this, I left you a question above and you did not respond to me. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I already responded in the DRV on that question. And if you still think those Afd's show a "strong" consensus after reading what I've said there, fine, but your position is exactly the same as Cirt's - you are saying it, but not showing it, or even hinting at showing you could actually show it even. To explain that concept, I will point you to WP:WFTE. Cirt didn't seem to want to see that link above, maybe you might. Why don't you have a crack at properly closing that Afd in a way that explains to everybody how the hell one side in that debate made such a shit job of arguing their case with respect to policy or evidence, that there is a "strong" consensus to be found for the other side, whose arguments were 90% pure blind assertion, or much worse, like making up your own notability standards! Anyway, beyond that, I seriously am bored now trying to 'explain' w.t.f. is wrong with the way these articles are being debated w.r.t. policy and procedure, and Cirt's role in that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, lets say we took the other sides votes into account. Would you have had it/them rather closed as no consensus? Either way they would have been kept, but none of them were applicable for deletion per what the !voters said. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this hypothetical exercise? If you believe he did not take into account the delete side, and the debate could have been closed as no consensus (which is a million miles from "strong keep"), then surprise surprise, that's a wrong decision that is open for review. If you don't believe this is what happened, then why are you suggesting it as a discussion topic? I asked you to have a go at closing it yourself, to see if you can put into words a closure that matches the arguments made, properly weighted. I'm not interesting in discussing outcomes you don't believe could have happened. The issue is Cirt closed this as "strong keep", and he doesn't want to explain how, at all. Here is an example of a closer doing it correctly, which ironically Cirt was actually going to relist - maybe the issue here is that Cirt does not believe in the whole concept of 'no consensus'? And frankly, with regard to the difference between that and keep, your suggestion that 'either way, it doesn't matter', for EVENT based Afd's, it actually does matter - see WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTAGAIN. It matters a great deal infact. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to self :Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 19. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi. I've filed a Request for Comment regarding you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Please write a response there as soon as possible. Thank you. HeyMid (contribs) 08:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Micky, I've been following the trends on that Rfc. Ya should walk away from those AfDs, while you can. I don't wanna see ya getting indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)